Bill S-6

An Act respecting regulatory modernization

This enactment amends various Acts as part of the Regulatory Modernization Initiative in order to repeal or amend provisions that have, over time, become barriers to innovation and economic growth or to add certain provisions with a view to support innovation and economic growth.
Part 1 modifies the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to, among other things,
(a) replace the requirement to publish a notice of bankruptcy in a local newspaper with a requirement to do so in the manner specified in directives of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy; and
(b) provide that, if every opposition based solely on grounds referred to in paragraph 173(1)(m) or (n) of that Act is withdrawn, a bankrupt who was eligible for an automatic discharge before the opposition was filed will be issued a certificate of discharge.
It also amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to allow the Governor in Council to authorize the director, appointed under subsection 26(1) of that Act, to establish plans for the verification of meters by any means.
It also amends the Weights and Measures Act to, among other things, enable the Minister of Industry to permit a trader to temporarily use, or have in their possession for use, in trade, any device even if the device has not been approved by the Minister or examined by an inspector.
It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 to, among other things, amend a provision under which certain amendments to the Trademarks Act may be brought into force.
Finally, it amends the Canada Business Corporations Act , the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act by replacing the term “annual return” with the term “annual update statement”.
Part 2 amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to repeal certain provisions that require the publication of draft regulations in the Canada Gazette .
It also amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to
(a) update the terminology in respect of hazardous products in the workplace to ensure alignment and consistency with the Hazardous Products Act ; and
(b) clarify the regulation-making authority with respect to record-keeping requirements for occupational health and safety matters.
Finally, it amends the Canada Lands Surveyors Act to, among other things,
(a) enhance the protection of the public by modernizing the complaints and discipline processes that govern Canada Lands Surveyors;
(b) reduce the regulatory burden of the Minister of Natural Resources by enabling the Council of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors to make by-laws respecting a broader range of matters;
(c) harmonize the French and English versions of the Act for consistency and clarity by, among other things, ensuring uniformity between both language versions in relation to the definitions of “licence” and “permit” and by addressing certain recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations;
(d) improve labour mobility within Canada and to better align with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement; and
(e) harmonize the text of that Act with the private law of the provinces and territories, being the civil law regime of the Province of Quebec and the common law regime in the rest of Canada.
Part 3 amends the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the requirement for the Governor in Council to make and update regulations specifying the animals and plants that are listed as “fauna” and “flora”, respectively, in an appendix to the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora; and
(b) clarify that the prohibitions in subsections 6(1) and 7(1) and (2) of that Act are subject to the regulations.
It also amends the Species at Risk Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to remove a species from Schedule 3 to that Act if the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has assessed the status of the species under section 130 of that Act or has determined that the species is not a “wildlife species” or a “species at risk” as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act;
(b) remove from that Schedule 3 the species that have already been assessed by COSEWIC under that section 130 or determined by it not to be a “wildlife species” or a “species at risk” as defined in that subsection 2(1);
(c) clarify the timelines for preparing proposed recovery strategies and management plans that must be prepared as a result of an assessment under section 130 of that Act; and
(d) repeal Schedule 2 to that Act.
Part 4 amends the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that powers are delegated to a marketing board in relation to the marketing of an agricultural product in interprovincial or export trade by virtue of being named in the schedule to that Act, rather than by Order in Council;
(b) provide that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is responsible for the delegation of those powers;
(c) delegate powers in relation to the marketing of agricultural products to administrative bodies;
(d) provide for limitations and exceptions, that were previously set out in orders and regulations made under that Act, with respect to the exercise of the delegated powers; and
(e) require marketing boards and administrative bodies to make accessible to the persons with respect to which they exercise their delegated powers the requirements or other measures they establish in the exercise of those powers.
It also repeals certain Orders and Regulations.
Part 5 amends the Feeds Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the approval and registration of feed are subject to prescribed conditions and to authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to make the approval and registration subject to additional conditions;
(b) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain feed may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the recognition of a system of any foreign state or subdivision of any foreign state relating to the safety of feeds.
It also amends the Fertilizers Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the approval and registration of a fertilizer or supplement are subject to prescribed conditions and to authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to make the approval and registration subject to additional conditions;
(b) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain fertilizers or supplements may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method;
(c) prohibit the release of novel supplements, except in accordance with the regulations, and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting any such release; and
(d) authorize the Minister to impose conditions on any authorization to release a novel supplement that the Minister may grant under the regulations.
It also amends the Seeds Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain seeds may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method;
(b) prohibit the release of certain seeds, except in accordance with the regulations; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the release of seeds, providing for the determination of varietal purity of seed crops by the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association and respecting the recognition of a system of any foreign state or subdivision of any foreign state relating to the safety of seeds.
It also amends the Health of Animals Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that a notice requiring the removal or disposal of certain animals or things may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method;
(b) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to renew, amend, suspend or revoke a permit or any other document issued by that Minister;
(c) prohibit the release of certain veterinary biologics, except in accordance with the regulations, and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting any such release;
(d) authorize the Minister to approve programs developed by entities other than the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for certain specified purposes and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the approval of such programs;
(e) clarify the circumstances under which an inspector or officer may declare that an infected place is no longer an infected place; and
(f) authorize the Minister to make an interim order if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk to human or animal health and safety or the environment.
It also amends the Plant Protection Act to
(a) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain things may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to renew, amend, suspend or revoke a permit or any other document issued by that Minister.
It also amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to authorize the use of electronic means to administer and enforce that Act and any Act or provision that the Agency is responsible for administering or enforcing.
Finally, it amends the Safe Food for Canadians Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the definition of “food commodity” by specifying that the reference in that definition to the definition of “food” in the Food and Drugs Act is subject to an interpretation provision in that Act;
(b) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain food commodities may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to extend any interim order for a period of no more than two years.
Part 6 amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to create an offence of contravening a term or condition of a licence or permit.
It also amends the Fisheries Act to remove the time limit for entry into an alternative measures agreement by an alleged offender and the Attorney General. Finally, it confirms that the provisions respecting alternative measures agreements do not limit the discretion of fishery officers, fishery guardians and peace officers in enforcing that Act.
Part 7 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 8 amends the Customs Act to authorize the making of regulations aimed at streamlining the implementation of free trade agreements.
Part 9 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to make interim orders to implement international standards or to ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations.

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved that Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to share my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am very pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill S-6, an act respecting regulatory modernization. Regulations are the book of rules that govern how businesses operate and that protect consumers, the environment, our health and our safety. As we have seen, these rules can pile up and become obsolete over time. When that happens, innovation and growth are stifled, which weakens the economy and causes more problems for Canadians.

Modernizing our regulatory system improves Canada's ability to attract investment in growth-oriented businesses. That is why this bill is so important. It would have an important impact on Canadian businesses and advance public service efficiencies.

In a time of economic recovery, Bill S-6 would ensure that the legislative frameworks that support Canada's regulatory system evolve with the changing technologies and environment.

The fact is that we have been working on the modernization of regulations for some time. The Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1 amended 12 regulatory instruments with the first annual regulatory modernization bill. It included making changes to digitalize paper-based processes, streamlining the review process for zero-emission vehicles, and enabling innovation by changing regulatory requirements to test new products.

The fact is that regular and eminently sensible updates ensure greater competitiveness. At the same time, we must protect Canadians' health, safety and environment.

An important way to ensure that we can modernize and streamline regulations while protecting Canadians and the environment is to put in place an in-depth and effective review process. To that end, this bill will serve as a recurring legislative mechanism. This means that the Government of Canada can ensure that the regulatory system remains pertinent, effective and up to date. It is designed to address the legislative challenges raised by businesses and citizens through consultations and targeted regulatory reviews.

In fact, consultations with stakeholders in the business sector led to the inclusion of this recurring mechanism. The economic strategy tables and the Advisory Council on Economic Growth pointed out that creating a regular mechanism such as this is essential to improving Canada's regulatory system.

I would also like to point out that the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness, made up of stakeholders from business and academia and consumers, has recommended continuing efforts to keep the administrative burden of regulation at a reasonable level and to ensure that regulations stand the test of time.

At its core, Bill S-6 proposes to modify 28 different acts through 45 common-sense amendments to modernize our regulatory system.

For example, the bill contains amendments to the Fisheries Act that would make it clear that fisheries officers have the authority for minor violations to reach an agreement with fishers instead of taking them to court, an authority that was unclear in the existing legislation. Not only would this reduce the number of lengthy and costly court processes, but it would also ensure small violations do not result in criminal records and the stigma and barriers that could come as a result. Importantly, this change has been supported by the fishing community and by indigenous peoples.

Another example is the minor change proposed to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. In short, this amendment would allow the CFIA to provide services and allow businesses to interact with the agency electronically instead of through paper transactions. This will give businesses more flexibility in their interactions with the federal government, resulting in a reduced regulatory burden.

There are also proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act that would allow us to adopt international transportation safety standards faster, in consultation with the businesses affected.

As we have seen, even minor changes can often have a significant positive impact on various sectors of the economy, and I have covered only three of the 45 amendments included in this bill. In addition, all of the proposals are cost-neutral, with little or no associated risk.

Bill S-6 helps ensure that our regulatory system stays up to date and sets up Canadians and businesses for success in the years ahead by amending laws that are too inflexible, too specific or simply outdated. This bill is an important reminder of the need for ongoing regulatory review and legislation that stands the test of time.

I want to also assure all hon. members that the bill is not a one-off.

It will be an annual undertaking. In fact, work on the next bill is already under way.

The Canadian regulatory system plays a key role in helping companies succeed and in protecting Canadians and the environment. For our economy to keep growing, we need a more effective and streamlined regulatory system that keeps on delivering world-class protection for consumers, health, safety and the environment.

This is exactly what Bill S‑6 does. It helps modernize the current rules to make things easier for companies, and it will continue to set up regulatory agencies, stakeholders and Canadians for success. This is something we can all get behind.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting that throughout the member's speech, he quite often made reference to the environment.

Through you to the member, I am curious what specific regulation the government is changing that would prevent it from once again handing out a $13-billion subsidy to the one automaker in this country that has actually been charged for violating CEPA. Which regulation would it like to change to make sure that does not happen again?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know it sticks in the hon. member's craw that Canada is now making a transition to a clean, green economy, especially in key sectors, such as the automotive sector.

Let me get back to Bill S-6.

I can tell members why this process is so important. We are going to review all of the government regulations to ensure that they are still up to date. Any obsolete regulations that are no longer useful must be removed. We must be sure to remain competitive so that the Canadian economy performs and so that we can protect Canadians and especially the environment.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his excellent speech.

It is important to modernize regulations and to keep them up to date. It is important that they be simple, clear and identical in both languages. I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we often have to repeatedly ask departments and ministers to correct discrepancies between the English and French versions of certain regulations and orders.

This week, we sent a notice of disallowance for a problem that has been going on for 25 years. I was not even old enough to vote when this problem arose. The fact that departments do not respond to the committee and that ministers refuse to testify in committee is an ongoing problem.

Do the government's objectives include fixing the relationship with the committee so that there will be more constructive interaction when it comes to modernizing our regulations and addressing any problems with them?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Mirabel on this issue.

The committee he is a member of may be one of the House of Commons' most important committees. I am not sure what I did in my life to deserve to be a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I wanted to be a member of that committee because at a joint committee of senators and members, parliamentarians have an opportunity to really get to the bottom of things and to require that the machinery of government change or get rid of things that have been dragging on for years. There are consequences to violating the requests of the committee.

Bill S‑6 gives us the chance to modernize regulations, in a similar fashion to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I hope it will lighten that important committee's workload.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to thank the member across the way for his speech on the importance of Bill S-6.

Bill S-6 is a massive bill. It contemplates minor amendments to a great series of ministries, and it is important work.

It is my understanding that consultations had taken place, vast consultations prior to COVID, beginning as early as 2017 and manifesting in 2019. However, we found there was not one labour organization consulted. Can the member speak to why there was an absence of consultation with labour?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot, but I will engage to get back to the member and find out why that was the case.

Labour is a very important element in terms of some of the key stakeholders, and we should be consulting not only with businesses, but also with labour, government and academics.

I do engage to get back to the member with a response.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here in the House with all my colleagues to discuss Bill S‑6. This bill is very important for addressing the red tape that exists in our federal system.

I heard some of the comments, and it seems that most members of Parliament believe this is reasonable and straightforward legislation. We are taking important steps to be able to reduce unnecessary irritants in our legislation to create an ease and efficiency about how the Government of Canada interacts with a variety of different sectors.

I am the proud chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and a lion's share of the provisions in Bill S-6 relates to agriculture; therefore, I put my hand up for the opportunity to speak to this legislation today. It relates to the opportunity to work with different agencies to help reduce some of that administrative burden. Representing Kings—Hants, where agriculture and farming are big parts of our economy, I often hear from stakeholders about the importance of small legislative and regulatory tweaks that actually mean just as much, in some cases, as government programming and funding.

I want to take an opportunity tonight to address some of the elements of the bill and offer some suggestions on where the government can go even further, because it is going to be really important in the days ahead. I also want to compliment the work on this bill in that it is a really important start, and it is important that we advance this through the House.

First of all, under the Seeds Act and the Feeds Act, for the CFIA, there is an ability for mutual recognition of products that may be deemed novel to Canada but have had approval elsewhere, in other jurisdictions with similar processes to ours, to be able to expedite approvals. Traditionally, the CFIA did not have that tool, where there was an ability to grant mutual recognition. What an opportunity this is to be able to expedite processes.

In a world where we are dealing with a global competitive marketplace, time matters. Having the ability to get these approvals and making sure the tools are available to the agriculture sector and to farmers are important steps. We do not have to compromise our public policy and public values around making sure there is due diligence, because we can rely on sound science and processes from other jurisdictions that we trust. I just want to highlight that.

I have had the opportunity to talk at quite considerable length about the idea that we should expand that pathway and create a presumptive approval. There is an opportunity for the CFIA and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be able to have an expedited pathway where an applicant can present evidence and the science that was used in a jurisdiction with similar practices and standards to Canada to expedite those pathways. I have encouraged the Minister of Health to look at this. I know the government is contemplating it, but I hope the bill could be a catalyst for driving this forward in the days ahead.

I also want to talk about the idea of trying to make some changes around how we meter and target electricity. This is a conversation that will become even more important in the days ahead, as we start to make really important moves to decarbonize our economy and talk about some of the standards. I have not gone through all of these in depth.

I want to compliment Senator Colin Deacon, who is in the other place. He has done tremendous work in stewarding Bill S-6 to us here in the House, and I want to make sure that is on the record in Hansard. He has also done tremendous work to help advance this in the days ahead.

Why is this important? It really matters in terms of getting efficiencies in how the government deals not only with large businesses but also with small businesses. Every member of Parliament has small businesses in their ridings that deal with the Government of Canada, whether it is through incorporation under the CBCA or other types of measures. We have to be mindful of that in the days ahead. There are opportunities for the government to go even further.

Canada actually ranks relatively poorly in the command and control regulations. What I mean is that we set out a legislative process whereby an applicant has to follow every single step that we determine necessary to get regulatory approval, versus an approach where we identify what outcome we need so that we can determine an approval, whether it is through government agencies or civil servants.

I have heard an analogy before, Madam Speaker, and I will use it for you. Maybe there is a good bakery in your riding. You do not walk into that bakery and say, “This is the exact recipe”, give it to the baker and tell them to bake the cake. There is trust in the baker, and they are told that the cake you want is round, delicious and chocolate. You would want to go in and describe that cake, as opposed to going in with a prescribed notion and saying, “Bake this exact cake.” The cake would be described to meet satisfaction, and the baker would be allowed to go and illustrate how they made that cake. Hopefully, there would be approval.

We need to be able to do that moving forward. The Speaker might have high standards of what her cake is, but she needs to describe it. That is the difference between command and control. She is not saying, “Here is the recipe; go bake this cake.” She is describing what type of cake she wants and then letting the baker be creative in delivering that cake. That is the best example. I look forward to the Hansard record of us talking about baked cakes and people asking how the heck this is important to Canadians.

It matters. We need a little more freedom in how we regulate. We have seen instances of regulatory approvals recently, including in my own backyard. I want to make sure it is very clear on the record that I think this is somewhere we have to go in the days ahead.

I can say this: I think the Liberal government is doing the right thing on Bill S-6. Let us look at important major projects that have to get done in this country. The Minister of Natural Resources has highlighted this. In our critical minerals sector, an extremely important question is this: How do we find a way to create efficiencies in the permitting process without compromising our public policy values?

There is a lot of room for us, as parliamentarians, to dig in on this question. Whether it is our decarbonized future, and how we reduce emissions and fight climate change, or whether it is our economic competitiveness, the economy is strong right now. Frankly, employment numbers are really good in this country. There are a lot of good indicators, but we could do even better.

How do we find ways on non-cost measures to be able to drive the initiatives that matter to Canadians? In this way, how can we reach the public policy goals that we are setting for ourselves, not only the government but, indeed, every member of this House that wants to see the best for Canada? How can we look at a formalized mechanism?

I want to compliment my predecessor, the hon. Scott Brison, who represented my riding. He served as the president of the Treasury Board. Let me recognize the current Acting President of the Treasury Board for her work in helping to steward and drive this thing forward.

In the past, in the 42nd Parliament, the government had regulatory review processes that were successful. How do we build on that success? How do we create a formalized mechanism that would allow the government to actually look at strategic growth areas; work with the business sector; work with organized labour, as one of my hon. colleagues mentioned earlier in a question; and work with stakeholders to identify ways that we could expedite process? This matters for the business community, for our competitiveness and for good jobs, whether in unionized or non-unionized contexts. This is how we have to move forward.

I am very proud of what the government has produced. Leading into the fall economic statement, I hope the government continues to build on that success by creating mechanisms that could do exactly that. It could focus on Canada's competitiveness and on non-cost measures that could help drive our public policy outcomes. Surely, everyone in this House would be able to agree that this is an important pathway that will make a difference in the days ahead.

It was a pleasure to get to speak to Bill S-6. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member briefly mentioned the PMRA.

We are having a lot of issues with the PMRA regulatory regime right now. There are many products that have been arbitrarily banned or pulled from the shelves because of uncertainty around the PMRA. Would the member support making some changes to regulations that would actually provide more certainty for our producers, so that companies are not arbitrarily pulling products off the shelves because of regulatory uncertainty?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is an important question. I represent an agricultural riding, as I know the hon. colleague across the way does as well; as such, I will say that the PMRA is a really important agency for agricultural competitiveness. Obviously, its decisions always have to be based on science and the evidence that is before it. I am not fit to make those decisions, and I would respectfully say, neither is the member opposite.

I said in my speech, and I want to reiterate in my answer here, that if there are ways that the PMRA can create expedited pathways based on the sound science of other trusted jurisdictions, that is extremely important. It could increase Canada's competitiveness by reducing the lag time before an applicant applies and when they can actually get approval. Therefore, I would agree with the member opposite that where we can use regulatory reform to help drive processes without compromising values, we absolutely should be doing that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for speaking French. It was excellent.

The bill would repeal section 15 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. As a result, regulatory changes to oil and gas operations would essentially no longer have to be published in Part I of the Canada Gazette.

The Senate debates revealed that many regulations are irrelevant, no longer used and no longer managed, and that changes could facilitate the process. As it stands, however, Bill S‑6 does not distinguish between minor regulatory changes and changes that would be much more consequential.

I am wondering if my colleague believes that this matter could be studied in committee to ensure that there is still a certain obligation to publish substantive regulatory changes that do not simply seek to simplify the process.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the proposal to study this bill in committee. In my view, it is very important to publish major regulatory changes.

At the same time, I believe that, with respect to the Atlantic provinces, the bill is very important as a means of identifying a way to adopt regulations for offshore wind power for the hydrogen sector.

I believe that measures for Atlantic Canada are very important, but that it is also important to be transparent in the future. I would be pleased to continue the work on this bill in committee.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. While my riding is not fully agricultural, we have a lot of small producers in my riding. They are concerned about food security and about quality of food. I know that my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, is busy consulting in the agricultural community on this bill.

The member's speech raised a significant concern for me when he talked about presumptive approvals of things in agriculture, using countries with what he would call similar standards. However, in agriculture, that usually means the United States, which has significantly lower standards in most agricultural and food products. We know that in things like milk and cheese, there are extra additives allowed in the U.S. that are not allowed in Canada. Does the member share that concern, and does he think there are adequate protections in these presumptive approval processes?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I will address the presumptive approval. This is something I am pushing as a member of Parliament and saying that this is something the government should take on. What this bill actually does is outline a process where the CFIA could find mutual recognition between other jurisdictions. The member opposite points to the United States, but this is one example. There are multiple jurisdictions around the world, I would submit to him, that we would share similar principles and values with.

In terms of the idea of a presumptive approval, it is not that there simply would be no review. We would look at the process and the science that was used in other jurisdictions and actually have an ability to see whether there is an expedited pathway on the strength and the resolution of that science. Therefore, I do not want the member to suggest that somehow there is no protocol in place. However, I hope he would agree that there is an ability to expedite this, where there are other jurisdictions with scientific processes that are very similar to those of Canada and that have demonstrably been proven safe. How do we find a way to make sure those small farmers the member talked about have the same access to the competitive tools as other farmers in other parts of the world?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Midnapore. Of course, as the shadow minister for the Treasury Board, I am responsible for critiquing this bill and overseeing the debate for the official opposition this evening, and it is a pleasure to do so.

I am sure members are aware that Bill S-6 is the second piece of regulatory legislation aiming to clean up small pieces of legislation throughout a series of departments and ministries that have required these small pieces of legislation to be cleaned up for some time. I will add that the first was completed before the pandemic. This one, the second, is unfortunately a little behind schedule as a result of the pandemic, but the government expects to conduct this exercise on a yearly basis.

What I think is very interesting is that in the third round, the government will start to consult with outside stakeholders. Of course, as the official opposition, we are always for consultation and transparency with Canadians, for Canadians working for themselves and for Canadians making decisions for themselves, so I certainly encourage the government to pursue this route of consultation and stakeholder talks in its next round before its proceeds to it.

In respect of the Bill S-6 document we have before us today, one thing is evident to me, and it is seen, I would say, throughout all of the correspondence I have received at my house, all of the conversations I have had with my hon. colleagues and all of the debate we have had in the House: Canadians are defeated and exhausted. With this bill, it is easy to see why.

First of all, as members know, the cost of living has skyrocketed in this country at a time when Canadians need measures to reduce their cost of living. I need not remind members that both rents and mortgages have doubled since 2015, since the government has been in power. Also, food inflation has increased at the fastest pace in 40 years, up by 10.8%. Butter is by 16.9%; eggs are up 10.9%; breads, rolls and buns are up 17.6%; lettuce is up by 12.4%; and apples are up by 11.8%.

Really, this is a time when Canadians need cost of living reductions. It means we need a government committed to balancing the budget, lowering deficits and working toward getting rid of our national debt. I really do not see this bill working toward that.

I am sure members are aware that over a million Canadians are using food banks at this time. In fact, it is 1.5 million, I believe. I am sure everyone saw the social media post, which was very unfortunate, of the Fort York Food Bank about the lineup there. Again, at a time when we need a government to be thinking about reducing waste instead of having red tape and additional measures that will cost more for government and more for Canadians, the government simply does not have that on its mind.

With that, I will make reference again to some of the numbers we see from the government.

As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, I can tell members that the cost of the public service has increased by over 50%. It is 53%, in fact, and it is crazy. If members can believe it, that is an additional $21 billion spent on our public service. We have this cost of living crisis, yet we have these incredible increases in the public service and in spending.

As I know everyone is well aware through conversations we have had in the House, in addition to that $21 billion spent on public servants, $22 billion was spent on outside consultants. Of course, one of them was McKinsey, a firm that was studied in depth at the committee on which I sit, government operations. I hope the transport committee will finally get an opportunity to discuss that after some back-and-forth among its members relating to the motion they passed to consider it.

The different types of waste evident in Bill S-6 come at a time when we need to be thinking about saving money for Canadians and not having these incredible expenses. The federal debt, as I am sure members are aware, reached $1.22 trillion. That is $81,000 of debt per household. This is the type of thing we need to focus on. The deficit for this fiscal year is projected to be $43 billion, and that is something we need to really think about. Also, the deficit for next year is projected to be $40.1 billion. That is really something.

If we look at these incredible numbers, our debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase from 42.4% in this fiscal year to 43.5% in the next fiscal year. The finance minister indicated prior to the budget that she was going to consider fiscal restraint, but we do not see anything like this. The result is that we end up with a bill like Bill S-6, with more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has a point of order.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not mean to take away from my hon. colleague's time, but this is about Bill S-6. I have been listening intently for the last few minutes. I do not know what your ruling may be, but she seems to be quite off the mark from the piece of legislation before the House. If you could ask the member how her remarks today relate to Bill S-6, I would certainly appreciate that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I think the hon. member has been making references to the bill, from my understanding of the bill.

The hon. member for Edmonton Riverbend is rising on the same point of order.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the member for Kings—Hants and he talked a lot about cake. He talked a lot about how he would reference cake—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is getting into debate.

I am going to give the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore the opportunity to continue her speech and make her case and points for Bill S-6.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.

Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.

As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.

In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.

I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.

With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.

As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.

We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.

We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.

For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.

Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.

In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.

Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.

Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.

Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.

I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.

These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.

Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.

I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.

It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.

Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the member brought up yesterday's opposition day motion, because I was not here so I was not able to contribute. Now I have the opportunity to ask her a question given she spent some time talking about it.

The Conservatives are talking about municipal gatekeepers, which is an interesting way to reflect on and appreciate municipal councils and mayors throughout the country who are elected and trying to represent their constituents. Nonetheless, what the Conservatives are doing is basically suggesting the federal government can somehow affect the direct policies in neighbourhoods about zoning, intensification and increasing density.

I know she says and the Conservatives say that this is about incentivizing municipalities to build more housing and tying, I guess, money to that incentivizing process. Can she explain to this House exactly how they would incentivize that, but more importantly, how it is different from the current existing housing accelerator fund that does exactly that?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Kingston and the Islands had an opportunity to weigh in on this conversation today.

First of all, I have the utmost respect for our civic politicians. I want to give a special shout-out to Dan McLean, who represents Ward 13 on Calgary City Council. I thank Dan for all the work he does and ask him to please keep fighting for the constituents and for all Calgarians.

It is very clear the housing plan of the current government is not working, as is indicated by the results. Providing incentives to Canadian cities, Canadian municipalities, is simply looking at the results, so how many homes they built and incentivizing that. There is a saying that if what one is doing is not working, one has to try something different. This is something different and I think it is going to work.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill S-6 contains a series of regulatory changes that could make life simpler for companies and the business community in Quebec and Canada.

Not to make any assumptions, Madam Speaker, but you do not look like someone who would want to file two tax returns, because your time is valuable and you do not want to waste it doing the same thing twice. I know you do not want to file two tax returns, and neither do Quebec businesses. This was confirmed by a motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly calling for a single tax return.

Until Quebec becomes a country and we are independent, does my colleague not think that it would be a good idea to make life simpler for our business owners by allowing them to file a single tax return?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel for his question. I also want to thank him again for his bill, Bill C-290.

The idea he just mentioned was part of our platform in the last two election campaigns. I am pretty sure about that with respect to individual tax returns. I am not 100% sure about it when it comes to businesses, but certainly with respect to individuals.

I know that the Quebec members of our caucus, but really all members of our caucus, agree that Canadians should be able to report their income in the simplest and easiest way possible.

I therefore agree with my colleague. We support the idea of collecting taxes as he has suggested.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the hilarious thing about being a Conservative is that they get a slogan, and they get use it again and again.

There is this whole thing about gatekeepers. Everybody is a gatekeeper now. The leader of the Conservative Party has never had a job and he lives in a 19-room mansion, so the only thing he has ever come up with are groundskeepers who are paid for by the taxpayers.

I listened to my hon. colleague, and she is upset that firearms legislation may be dealt with by order in council, when it should be dealt with by legislation. That is based on political amnesia. The Harper government used an order in council to stop the gatekeepers, the RCMP, from designating what were dangerous weapons.

The Harper government brought in the use of the order in council on firearms. The Harper government did not want it to go through legislation, and it did not want police involvement. Now we are in a situation where the Conservatives are crying and outraged. Now they are defending trying to stop changes to the legislation that would stop ghost guns. I do not know what they figure in terms of gatekeepers who are running around with ghost guns, but we have to deal with these issues, and it was the Harper government that used an order in council to exploit the ability of the gun lobby and to circumvent legislation for the Canadian people.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not going to let any member in this House, be they from that part of the government or the part of the government back there, deter me from a future that I believe is better for Canadians, and that is a Conservative government. These individuals can belittle me, belittle my ideas and belittle the ideas from my party, but they will not deter me, my colleagues or my leader from fighting for a government that is better for Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, the member never answered my question, and I really want her to bring it home on this so that I can get a straight answer to my question.

What I asked was how the proposal by the Conservatives about incentivizing municipalities is any different from the current housing accelerator fund that exists. If she is saying that we are unsuccessful and are not producing results, what she is effectively saying is that their plan would do the same.

Can she explain to me how the Conservatives' plan to incentivize building housing is different from the current housing accelerator fund that exists?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government is not getting results. It is absolutely evident. We have had individuals from other parties talk about the necessity of providing housing at all different scales of the housing continuum. Our platform has done this in the past as well.

I do not know what I could even say to the member to bring to light just what a failure the Liberals' plan has been. We have to try something different and some new ideas. I believe this is a different idea and a new idea to incentivize, because I have not seen anything change in my municipality, and I have not seen—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the RMB is supposed to be instituted annually, as per the government. The last one was done four years ago. I cannot believe how bad the government is at math. Something that has to be done every year is being done once every four years.

Could my hon. colleague elaborate on that failure in dealing with something such as this, which is supposed to be very important?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my wonderful colleague from Edmonton Manning is absolutely correct. I indicated this concern in my speech. I am very concerned what this glacial pace of re-evaluating regulations and policies means for the economic future and security future of our nation. On a daily basis in the House, we are seeing it being compromised.

I would say to my colleague that I am really looking forward to the third edition of Bill S-6 having some clauses on VCRs, beta tapes and compact discs.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Clearly, the national housing strategy has been a failure. The Conservative strategy is to get back on track and attack our elected municipal officials by judging their work and telling them that they are not capable of making the right decisions. I would like to point out that the elected officials of the Union des municipalités du Québec are in Gatineau right now. I want to say hello and let them know that we appreciate their work and their skills, and we are happy that they are here.

The member and her party say they will respect provincial jurisdictions and stop imposing conditions on them. At the same time, in their opposition motion, they said they would impose conditions on municipalities and, if they do not listen to what know-it-all Ottawa says, they would take away their funding.

How is that possible?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it warms my heart to see that we both care about our counterparts at the municipal level. We both have hope for more housing in Quebec and Alberta—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to share my time with my unique and extraordinary colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, over the past few days, my area has had significant rainfall. As a result, numerous rivers are overflowing and there is major flooding, damage and all sorts of issues. Many houses are flooded. People in my riding have lost a lot. Many roads were cut off and are still not passable. A number of communities are isolated. It is a sad state of affairs, and I am deeply distressed. My thoughts go out to the people of Saint-Côme as well as Sainte-Émélie-de-l'Énergie, Chertsey, Saint-Alphonse-Rodriguez, Entrelacs, Rawdon, Saint-Michel-des-Saints and Saint-Zénon, and of course the Atikamekw community in Manawan. I am also thinking of the people of Saint-Donat, Notre-Dame-de-la-Merci and Sainte-Béatrix.

Everyone is hoping that the rain will stop soon and that we can carry on with the repair work. I would like to thank the municipal elected officials, their teams on the ground and the many volunteers who are doing an incredible job under the circumstances. I would also like to thank Quebec for its involvement. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the personal commitment of the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. I had the opportunity to speak with him and he, too, offers his full co-operation and is very saddened by the situation.

Obviously, we also stand in solidarity with the people of other municipalities in Lanaudière, as well as in the Laurentians and the Outaouais, and of course those in the Charlevoix region and Baie-Saint-Paul in particular. Our thoughts are with them. We are terribly saddened by the tragic accident involving the two firefighters who were on a rescue mission.

As we can see, climate change is generating more extreme weather events. We need to start adapting to this new reality now. Clearly, infrastructure upgrades are now urgent. Ottawa must contribute. I also invite this government to listen to the needs of municipalities to bring all small dams up to standard.

Let us get back to Bill S‑6.

As members know, this regulatory modernization bill is introduced annually. It includes minor changes to ease the administrative burden on businesses, facilitate digital interactions with the government, streamline regulatory processes, provide exemptions from certain regulatory requirements for testing new products and facilitate cross-border trade. It updates 29 laws with 46 amendments and affects 12 government departments and agencies. I did say minor changes.

Bill S-6 helps ensure that the regulatory environment evolves in step with technologies and takes into account the realities of businesses. That is a very good thing, even though it is a bit late. The government announced its intention to introduce this bill in 2018, or five years ago. We know that there was a pandemic, but we also know that this government does not move very quickly.

In short, we are studying a bill to modernize regulations. The amendments are minor and we find most of them to be pertinent.

However, as long as we will be doing that, I would have liked the bill to go much further. For example, it could have addressed the regulations buried in the Income Tax Act, which legalize the use of tax havens to avoid paying what is owed. We have recognized that for many years. It is high time we withdrew them. I am referring here to section 5907 of the Income Tax Regulations, which allow banks, web giants and multinationals to report their profits made here in a tax haven to avoid paying tax. It is about time to make illegal what is immoral. This is an opportunity to withdraw regulations that contravene the very spirit of the law.

The use of tax havens is a scourge that undermines our public services. Globally, it is estimated that $12 trillion in assets are hidden in tax havens. This situation is only possible because of the hypocrisy of western governments, starting with England and the United States. In Canada, the examples of Paul Martin and Bill Morneau speak for themselves. While Ottawa was legalizing using Barbados as a tax haven, Paul Martin, the then minister of finance, was registering his company there to avoid paying taxes. The Morneau Shepell family business publicly offered its services to retirement funds and insurance companies to help them use tax havens, even though he was serving as finance minister for the current government.

According to expert Renaud Van Ruymbeke, despite the efforts of the OECD and the G20, tax havens have never been used more often.

A world of shell companies, trusts, front men and straw men, financial advisors and legal experts, also known as “trustees”, is protecting the perpetrators of massive fraud, certainly tax fraud, but often also criminal fraud. There is a mix of drug traffickers, CEOS of multinational corporations looking to evade taxes, oligarchs, of course, mobsters, greedy and corrupt dictators...

Let us not forget that Mr. Van Ruymbeke was an investigative judge in the financial division of the Paris court. In a recent book, he explains how tax havens are used to hide assets and evade taxes.

Based on his investigative experience, he describes the complex techniques implemented by banks, firms and specialized offices. He also lists the main offshore financial centres, such as Delaware, the City of London, the British Isles, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, and so on.

According to this expert, international agreements yield almost no results. As he explained, and I quote, “these reforms have a flaw: They assume that bankers, trustees and consulting firms under the jurisdiction of tax havens will co-operate, under threat of sanctions. However, they live off this hidden money. Why would they report their clients, which would make them flee to other jurisdictions?”

In fact, he explains that these managers are continually adapting to new rules to continue protecting their clients' identities and assets, which makes it difficult to make any real changes.

Fortunately, there have been many leaks from whistle-blowers. They have shown just how widespread the use of tax havens is and they have mobilized us to take collective action. I want to once again quote Mr. Van Ruymbeke, who said, “The papers have thus become recurring global scandals. No financial centre is immune to these continuous revelations. I find that reassuring. There are cracks in even the thickest armour. Dubai, which never responded to my requests, is at the mercy of computer leaks and the Papers whistle-blowers, just like all of the financial centres.”

Names of the beneficiaries can been revealed and some evaded taxes can be recovered, but the judge reminded us that this is the exception. To really eliminate those privileges, we need to put an end to the complacency that currently exists. That takes political will. To accomplish this, every government needs to implement a centralized registry of all the accounts on its territory and create a list of the real beneficiaries.

Again according to Mr. Van Ruymbeke, “Every country also needs to create a registry of all of the corporations and make it accessible to everyone. We need to eradicate the fake Liechtenstein foundations and other shell companies.” He goes on to say, “Every country must ensure that the banks do not just go through the formalities but actually verify their clients' assets, particularly those of any front men whose personal resources do not justify the tens of millions of euros flowing into their accounts.”

Banks must be required to report suspicious transactions or face real penalties. The government needs to stop being soft on trustees and legal advisers who help arrange fraud. Banks that participate in tax evasion must be severely punished.

Shell companies should be prohibited altogether. If the sole purpose of a company is to conceal the identity of its owner, it should be illegal. This must be the case for shell companies in the Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Panama and Delaware. Their sole purpose is to be used in offshore arrangements. This should also apply to Liechtenstein foundations, Anglo-Saxon trusts, and so on.

All countries that allow multinationals, banks and individuals with personal fortunes to escape taxation by using tax havens have an elephant in the room. How can we legitimately impose austerity policies, cutting public services or raising the retirement age, when we allow the wealthy to evade taxes? It is high time we addressed this, including the regulations in section 5907 of the Income Tax Regulations.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague from Joliette is very passionate about the issue of tax evasion. I understand, because we are constantly told that there is not enough money for health transfers. We are told that there is not enough money for the provinces. However, at the same time, we are depriving ourselves of important sources of revenue.

That said, with respect to tax evasion, there is always one country saying that it cannot be the first to make changes, because it must wait for the others to do so. Ultimately, no one ever does anything.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question: In this matter, why is Canada not showing any international leadership?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is lagging behind when it comes to dealing with tax evasion and tax avoidance. In the United States, the equivalent of the Canada Revenue Agency, or the IRS, has taken legal action. There have been criminal judgments and sentences have been imposed. This has never been done in Canada for tax evasion. More needs to be done.

The government says it has more means. Now, we are going to have better laws, but it also takes political will. We are still far from seeing results.

In the latest leaked “papers”, Radio-Canada reported that Revenu Québec had recovered more money than the Canada Revenue Agency, which had recovered 20 or 30 times less than its friends in Europe such as England, France and Germany.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Many businesses tell me that there is too much red tape in Canada. The administration is cumbersome. There are often delays at the municipal and federal levels. There are forms to fill out to participate in programs. It is onerous and complicated. A person almost needs a doctorate in administration to be able to fill out those forms.

Does my colleague think there might be a way to improve the situation?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. I completely agree with him. There is far too much paperwork. The departments do not communicate with each other. We need to do a lot more than what is set out in Bill S‑6. Bill S‑6 helps a little bit, but there is still a lot of work to be done after that.

One thing that the Bloc Québécois keeps bringing up and that I think the Conservative Party supports is the single tax return. We are asking that Quebeckers only be required to fill out one tax return rather than two, and that that single tax return be administered by Quebec. There is a consensus on that in Quebec. That would mean a lot less paperwork for businesses. We are therefore once again asking the government to listen to us.

Of course, the government does not like that idea and wants to maintain control. Sharing power is not something the federal government likes to do. It prefers the idea of a legislative union where know-it-all Ottawa controls and oversees everything.

That is not our vision. We want to reduce the paperwork for businesses with a single tax return.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill S‑6 contains a lot of little regulatory changes that we are told can make a big difference for the business community.

It seems to me that some big changes, like Quebec's independence, could eliminate some major duplication and simplify the lives of Canadians, Quebeckers and businesses.

I am wondering whether my colleague can give us a few more examples on this lovely evening.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his comments. Yes, indeed, we have two levels of government.

Because the decisions made here in Ottawa are not consistent with the values held by our distinct society, we have developed a sort of half-state that is more responsive to our needs. Meanwhile, half the taxes we pay come here. Sometimes these funds are spent in useful ways, but sometimes they are used for projects that we do not care about or that actually harm our interests and values.

Because we love Quebeckers and want the best for them, our party is of the opinion that we had better make decisions ourselves in order to be fully accountable. Let us stay good neighbours instead of bad roommates.

I would obviously have a host of examples to give; however, since my time is limited, I will provide examples in a future speech.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that responds to repeated requests from small and medium-sized businesses. It also contains provisions that affect large corporations, which will have to be examined more carefully.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Joliette who has been strong and agile, just like Matthew Tkachuk in his fight against Toronto. That is what is sometimes missing from the Canadian economy and Canadian laws: strength and agility.

Like my colleagues, I do not have the luxury of holding the House at rapt attention while I talk about each of the amendments. I simply do not have enough time. That is why I think that a more detailed study of this bill in the various committees is quite warranted. I will, however, take a few moments to talk about some of those amendments.

Bill S‑6 has many interesting provisions and will certainly make it easier to do business in Canada by eliminating outdated regulatory requirements and authorizing the use of modern means of communication. Believe it or not, there are government organizations that still use paper and fax machines. Worse yet, they force us to use paper and fax machines too. We even have a fax machine in each of our offices, I would remind everyone. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is one such organization. There is something for everyone in this bill.

The bill proposes roughly 46 changes to 29 acts that are administered by the following organizations: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. It might be a good idea to include Air Canada, in order to ensure that it provides quality service in the regions. That is another story.

On a more serious note, before I get to the heart of the matter, I would like to say a few words about a loss that is affecting our community and the Ukrainian community in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the contribution of Jim Slobodian, a resident with Ukrainian roots who did a lot for the Ukrainian community. He was instrumental in preserving his community's history in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, whether by sharing the history of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Rouyn-Noranda or by establishing the Camp Spirit Lake Interpretation Centre as a reminder of this internment camp, which was built near Amos in 1914 and closed in 1917.

Jim Slobodian was also a committed volunteer. He was involved in amateur sports and, along with Jean-Paul Charlebois, he negotiated the famous boxer Muhammad Ali's visit to Rouyn-Noranda in 1983, an historic event for the region that was documented in the film Voir Ali, by Martin Guérin. My father, Guy Lemire, and my uncle, Jean-Pierre Lemire, were also part of it. I invite everyone to watch it.

In short, Jim Slobodian was one of the many immigrants from eastern Europe who helped build Rouyn-Noranda. He later helped welcome Ukrainian nationals who moved to our area. His work in preserving the Ukrainian history of Rouyn-Noranda has helped ease the transition for the Ukrainian nationals that our region has recently welcomed. I salute Jim and thank him for everything.

Let us now get back to Bill S-6. It is precisely these types of outdated and, quite frankly, slow regulatory actions and processes that undermine the competitiveness of Canadian businesses and our confidence in the system. It also makes things more difficult for foreign companies that want to invest here. We were just talking about this today at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Without a doubt, the business world is constantly changing. Emerging technologies, new regulations and changing consumer preferences are among the many factors contributing to the rapid transformation of the business environment. Keeping pace with these changes is essential for companies to remain relevant and competitive.

There are many arguments in favour of this kind of annual exercise. This government initiative is interesting, provided that it takes into account the many reports that have addressed the importance of regulation or that have identified indicators affected by our economy's lack of efficiency and agility. Perhaps too much is being asked of entrepreneurs. Of course, the bureaucracy has become quite heavy on the federal side. It is essential to take stock.

I am thinking of the Deloitte report published in 2019 on the state of regulation, entitled “Making regulation a competitive advantage”, which referred to Canada's regulatory environment as a core weakness.

I am also thinking of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology's study on the same subject and the report we produced, entitled “Small and Medium Enterprises in Canada: Charting a Competitive Future”. This report talked about the labour shortage and all the regulatory paperwork required to hire foreign workers, especially in an agricultural or rural context.

Canada is a poor performer when it comes to regulating business activity, and the costs involved in meeting all government requirements are high, which affects competitiveness.

Three themes seem to have provided inspiration for Bill S-6: the ease of doing business, regulatory flexibility and agility, and the integrity of the regulatory system.

With regard to the ease of doing business and amendments 1 and 2 in particular, Bill S-6 proposes amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so that businesses can more easily restructure their debt and continue to operate during periods of restructuring. The bill will also allow businesses to reach agreements with creditors without having to get approval from the court.

Right now, there is no mechanism to allow for the withdrawal of a request for mediation, even if both parties reach an agreement, which means that they often have to go through an unnecessary mediation process. That can result in higher costs and delay the completion of the bankruptcy process. What is more, given the growing use of digital and social media, local newspapers are not always the best way to keep creditors and other interested parties informed of the bankruptcy, even though that is one way to fund those newspapers. The funding of our local and regional media is very important. The amendment would allow the superintendent of bankruptcy to issue directives specifying the manner in which the notice should be published.

There is amendment 4 on trademarks, which authorizes the disclosure of certain information to the public. Bill S‑6 would allow the Canadian Intellectual Property Office to disclose certain information about applications for trademark registration, including the names and addresses of trademark holders and the trademark filing and registration dates.

Currently, the Trademarks Act prohibits the disclosure of this information except under certain limited circumstances, such as legal proceedings and criminal investigations. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to improve transparency, a key word in this debate, in the trademarks system and to make it easier to access information on trademark holders. This could be useful for businesses, consumers and intellectual property professionals. This is an essential issue.

I commend Jim Balsillie, whom we heard this week at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I think everyone has a duty to reflect on how we regulate our intellectual property. This is an important part of our economy, but we are leaving it vulnerable.

This clause takes effect on the day Bill S‑6 receives royal assent.

Regarding amendment 8, when Bill S‑6 is studied in committee, it will be important to ask public servants to ensure that this does not exempt corporations from publishing their financial statements, particularly for non-profit organizations that benefit from more advantageous tax provisions. We must be careful not to open a governance and transparency loophole that we are trying to close.

For instance, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is examining the records of national sports organizations. They are not in compliance at the moment. Hockey Canada, for example, was not compliant until recently. The Canadian Hockey League is non-compliant, and Canada Soccer just recently filed the information that was missing. The work we have done in committee is what is bringing transparency to these charities. There may be other regulatory changes to be made in this area.

With respect to regulatory flexibility and agility, we noted that clauses 15 and 17, the amendments to the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, could potentially pose a problem. The bill proposes to drop the obligation to publish amendments to regulations under these laws in the Canada Gazette. The government says that the purpose is to cut red tape, but we fear that this would make it possible to amend the regulations to benefit oil companies without informing the general public. In short, it is imperative to ask the government about these amendments. The past often foretells the future. I do not believe in green oil.

The amendments concerning immigration should not pose a problem if they seek to ensure that information is shared within a department or with other departments, whether provincial or federal, in order to uphold provincial or federal laws.

With respect to the integrity of the regulatory system, there is a whole range of amendments affecting agriculture. That is the responsibility of my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is an expert on this subject. He is our party's critic for agriculture, agri-food and supply management.

What I would really like to see is an amendment that responds to a repeated request from boards of trade in every riding across Canada.

The Fédération des Chambres de commerce du Québec sent me its recommendation, which reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada:

Work with the impacted regulated entities and related associations to amend and modernize the Boards of Commerce Act to reflect current and future business and governance models and needs. Specific areas could include the following amendments:

1. Amend part 1, section 3(1) to replace the specific references with more current business language regarding who is eligible to form a board of trade;

2. Amend part 1, section 11 to allow at least two additional members to serve on the council of the corporation, in addition to the president, vice-president and secretary;

3. Amend part 1, section 12(2) to provide for a term of office of up to two years for members of the council of the corporation;

4. Amend section 17(1) to allow for at least one general meeting to be held per year;

5. Introduce new language in the Act to allow flexibility in the type of financial reports—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time is up.

I do not know whether the interpreters were able to keep up with the member, but I think they did a good job.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for questions and comments.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech. He really covered a lot of the aspects of the bill. He touched on many areas there.

I just want him to go back to the portion where he was talking about trademarks. I know the Bloc talk a lot about trying to deal with the issue of planned obsolescence. In the regulations that will be changed around trademarks, does the member think there will be anything to help out in that area as well?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passion for trademark protection and his interest in creating increasingly modern and robust legislation.

I would remind him that the objective is to ensure that our local industries are as successful as possible. That requires a legal mechanism that will protect our economy. It is not the rest of the world's economy that we need to protect; it is our own, particularly in rural areas.

I commend my colleague for his interest in this issue. We should be able to protect our trademarks, our integrity and our intellectual properly effectively. Intellectual property theft is too easy right now. If China is doing as well as it is, it may be because we wanted to manufacture all of our stuff there and we gave away all our patents at the same time. Perhaps it is too late to do anything about that, but it is not too late to do a better job of protecting our businesses' interests, particularly in the age of digitalization.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my neighbour from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his recognition of the huge contribution of the Ukrainian community in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I know well the history of the Ukrainian church in Val-d’Or, in Rouyn. It is the same story in Kirkland Lake with the Ukrainian church that just closed and, of course, the Orthodox and Ukrainian church in Timmins. This is the story of our families who moved back and forth along that line from Val-d’Or to Timmins in the mines. We also know the history of the treatment of the Ukrainians, the mistreatments and incarcerations. My friend, Richard Desjardins, has talked about how Noranda Mines used to bring in the Ukrainians because they would threaten to deport them if they ever tried to strike.

Given the incredible contribution of the Ukrainian community in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the situation with the war, I would like to ask my hon. colleague how he feels the Ukrainian community has added to the vitality and development of our region.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, my neighbour, for allowing me to speak to this issue.

Barely a century ago, Rouyn‑Noranda was the second most cosmopolitan city in Canada. Before Toronto and Vancouver there was Rouyn‑Noranda. This was mostly due to the arrival of people from all over the world. At the time, regulations favoured the massive arrival of immigrants who came to work on developing our economy. The situation at the time was very different than it is today.

This paved the way for the emergence of a very engaged community, the Ukrainian community. I did not have the chance to inform my colleague of this, but I recently participated in the Timmins tournament with my hockey team, the Pro‑Gaz. We won, by the way. I did notice the presence of this Ukrainian church. Father Chayka was probably also in Timmins-James Bay. Sadly, he died in the early days of the invasion of Ukraine. He would have been very helpful in welcoming the newcomers. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, we have welcomed more than 60 of them, including five at my place. I would like to say hello to them.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the discussion we just heard was very moving, and I congratulate both my colleagues.

My question is about the delays. Bill S-6 was announced in 2018, and, in 2023, it has only reached second reading stage.

We know that there was a pandemic and that this government takes its time, but what does my hon. colleague think about that? Are such long delays acceptable?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is happening right now is quite shocking.

I would like to tell my colleague about the report prepared by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which I mentioned earlier. The report shows the economic impact of immigration delays on small and medium-sized businesses.

Madam Speaker, in my riding and yours, we are losing many workers because the agreements are making immigration wait times much longer.

We have to ask ourselves some serious questions, because this ultimately has repercussions on the economic development of every municipality. Land use, a fundamental value, is affected by the delays, which are mainly caused by the federal government. We have to think of our SMEs and support some regulatory relief.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill S-6. I want to thank the previous speaker for highlighting many of the areas that are contemplated in this bill. I would argue that it was one of the better speeches made today.

I also want to speak to what the bill does. Of course, as was just mentioned, it was originally contemplated in the minister's mandate letter as far back as 2015 that the economic viability of our regulatory processes be looked at to ensure increased innovation and competitiveness. This version of Bill S-6 removes the existing negative barriers to imperative regulation processes, as outdated provisions can lead to significant errors and impact essential work within government departments.

This is one of the greatest tests of our time. Between the tabling of the previous iteration of this bill and the tabling of this version there was a significant event. COVID–19 impacted our country in ways we never would have expected. We practically went online overnight. In a short period of time, we went from living our regular everyday lives to being almost alone in our homes and relying on digital technology. Federal civil services were also impacted by the requirement of regulations and the burden of ensuring we were able to address those issues via companies and regulators throughout COVID. Therefore, it is a very timely bill in the sense that we can finally address some long-awaited areas. If the government had done a better job, some of these regulations might have already been passed before we experienced COVID–19, this tragic, ongoing, international disease.

I want to speak to the broadness of the bill. It modifies 29 acts through 46 amendments and applies to 12 departments and agencies. Imagine how large and significant that will be. We have seen, through Senate committee hearings, for example, that the amendments are low risk and deal largely with the requirement of modernizing existing processes, for example, the requirement for physical postings versus online postings, so we can see that the nature of these amendments is such that they will make the operations of government more consistent and more appropriate for the processes and regulations to be used.

It is important as well to ensure that, regarding the regulations to be reviewed at committee, other folks, like agriculture, for example, which is one of the departments most affected by this bill, be at the table to speak directly to the issues, particularly those amendments with respect to agriculture. I know the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is doing good work with many agriculture representatives across the country and is consulting on this as we speak.

New Democrats will stand in support of the passage of this bill at second reading in order to get it to committee. At committee, I would invite all our colleagues to work diligently to ensure that the vastness and scope of the bill is truly reviewed at committee. If it requires amendments, I hope the government will be willing to table the amendments in earnest and adopt them.

One of the greatest concerns I have with the bill, which has also been referenced by other members of this chamber, is with respect to the vast consultations. When we look at some of the consultation documents that were tabled by the government and reviewed at the Senate hearings, for example, it is clear that the government was consulting businesses, industry and stakeholders, but the one important stakeholder that was absent was labour unions. We know that good, quality work in Canada is one of the most important skills we have. We know that human resources and good skilled labour is truly our best resource in this country, so why would we not invite labour unions to the table when talking about some of the most significant changes these folks will deal with in their industry? Although they are minor in their area and impact, it is regular everyday people who will have to process these regulations, so why not make it easier for all those who process those regulations to do that work, including the labour unions? I believe labour and management can do great things in this country if they work together. At committee we are going to ensure that we invite many labour representatives to speak directly to the impacts of this legislation on labour.

I want to speak about the benefits of improving our regulatory systems on an annual basis, another important piece to this legislation. It speaks about the important work that is required when provisions go out of date. We are not immune to modernity in this place, nor are our laws, meaning that we need to invest in time and processes. Bill S-6 contemplates a process to modernize these things.

Regulations, of course, are important pieces of how the government needs to operate. They are the biggest role of the government. They ensure that consumers are most and best protected, regular everyday folks, folks who need these kinds of protections. New Democrats have always cautioned against outright removal of regulations that would seek to harm consumers for the benefit of big corporations. Although this bill does not contemplate any of these vast changes, the annual process, as a matter of fact, could.

At committee stage, I hope we can find ways to close up and tighten the language of this bill to ensure, when we are speaking about annual regulation changes, that process is defined in area, scope and impact, and we make sure the right stakeholders are at the table. I do agree that the government did a good job in terms of its consultations with businesses, industry and stakeholders, but the important piece of ensuring that labour is there is most critical.

We also see mention of “help cut red tape”. That is a famous Conservative line, that they are going to cut the red tape. We see the Liberals are joining this process of calling for the cutting red tape. As a matter of fact, we heard a speech from a Conservative earlier, who did not mention anything about Bill S-6. I hope the vast debates that they are going be hosting tonight and the vast number of speeches that they have asked for today speak directly to this aspect, speak directly to the fact that we are going to see a reduction of regulations through this bill. I would imagine the Conservatives are going to be voting in favour in this, but have yet to hear their position.

When we talk about how existing regulations in this bill are going to work, for example, the ones related to agriculture, we need to be careful when we talk about fairness in competition and innovation that we protect Canadian producers. I am a bit nervous with some of the language presented in the agriculture amendments that look at other jurisdictions. It was mentioned by a Liberal member earlier today that some of these regulations could impact the competitiveness of Canadian farmers and producers by looking at other jurisdictions and equalizing, for example, the requirements they have. I think of dairy products, for example. Canada has some of the best laws protecting our dairy industry, but if we were to reduce those regulations in favour of other jurisdictions' regulations and “scientific processes reviews”, they could in fact harm producers. That is why New Democrats are consulting at this time with the agriculture sector and we hope to invite their amendments to this bill at committee.

As well, we know that during the hard time during COVID-19 when so many Canadians had to all of a sudden deal with the reality of going online, we found that many Canadians were unequipped to do that. We found that many Canadians did not have some of the services that the country is moving forward with, and that is an important piece to this. As much as we are in favour of ensuring that we are going to be operating in the 21st century by eliminating fax machines, for example, and ensuring that people can apply online, we have to remember those in northern, rural and remote communities.

There has to be a way to ensure that those who are not yet connected, those who lack ability and connectivity, have a chance to access these services, too. That means ensuring that rural and remote communities continue to access their services the way they know how. Should there be a barrier, like being unable to apply for a service online because of a lack of technology, Internet or availability, the government needs to take special consideration of those realities.

We also want to ensure that environmental groups are consulted on the impacts of much of this work. We know that environmental groups are some of the most passionate, hard-working and decent people who are looking at the very environment we live in, the conditions we live in.

It is important that they are invited to the table because the ministry of environment has a proposed amendment. Why not invite more people into the room? Come committee stage, we hope that environmental groups will also be invited to have their testimony heard in relation to the bill.

The external advisory committee on regulatory competitiveness, made up of business, academic and consumer stakeholders, has also recommended that there be continued efforts to reduce the administrative burden on regulations and to ensure that they are future-proof, which means keeping pace with changing technologies and business realities. We agree with this. New Democrats believe that the government must continue to keep pace with modernity, such as Canadians are. However, it is important that the government acts on Canadians' best interests and, in particular, act in the interest of protecting consumers.

For example, we live in an age when many members of the House have probably heard of ChatGPT, which is artificial intelligence, or AI, so part of the regulations that contemplate an annual renewal of regulations should take special consideration of AI technology. My colleague, the member for Windsor West, has spoken to this and has done good work to ensure that the science and technology is well regulated and that the processes are there to protect regular Canadians. We need to ensure that annual regulation reviews take special consideration of that level of changing technology.

AI will dramatically change the landscape on how regular, everyday people interact with our government, with one another and online. We need to ensure that our regulatory systems, in particular, the continued annual regulatory systems, take into special consideration these facts. We may not even know what kind of future innovation is out there yet.

To contemplate a process that looks at the future renewal of regulations means that we have to take special consideration with a special eye on science and technology. We need to ensure that, as it exponentially grows, the regulations are put in place to better protect them. I am saying that we should not only see regulation review and the modernity of regulation review as a process to remove regulations, but we should also consider what regulations could be put in place that are common sense and good for Canadians. For example, common sense in access, equitability and applicability.

We have the power in this place to ensure that the processes are in place so that everyday, regular Canadians, or the companies that our country is proud to host, can interact in a fair system in a way that does not take advantage of their time and where they can actually see their products and innovative work produced and put onto the market without hindrance. I agree with that principle, and that is the nature of the bill before us.

However, by no means should we take my airing this caution as a way to diminish the innovation that is happening, but we need to have a balance. Regulation and the processes that government creates to ensure that these regulations are put in place are there to protect Canadians from ulterior motives that could otherwise take from them more than we had ever anticipated. This is because of the unique relationship between science and technology, regulation and the future. When the committee asks for something to be future-proof, we have to contemplate what that really means. When the committee asks how we can create a future-proof system to deal with regulations that are cumbersome, we need to consider the balance of facts and the risk that could be present to Canadians.

We know, for example, that banks and big corporations often look at the letter of the law to find ways to get around it. Why would a company do something like? Well, oftentimes we find that these companies are seeking to get around those laws to get around the protections that we have put in place for consumers so they can maximize their own interests. If it is our job in this place to ensure that the interests of Canadians, regular folks and consumers, are heard, then it is in the interest of all members in this chamber to put in place good regulations. Those regulations should be for the betterment of understanding, whether it is in agriculture, technology and science, and we truly future-proof that process by taking an earnest consideration of the power of regulations.

Therefore, a red tape reduction act like this, the one being contemplated here, does have some areas that we have to hear about in committee. It does not mean that we are opposed to the vast number of amendments in here. It means that we have to do more work.

New Democrats stand ready and firm to work with all members of the House to ensure that we get to a place where we strike the balance I spoke about between what is future-proof and what is in the public good of Canadians. How do we strike a balance between these two in a way that encourages innovation and science, but keeps the protection of Canadians at heart? That is the role of the government. That is the role of bills such as Bill S-6.

We need to find ways to ensure that, while we future-proof this process, we take those lessons learned to ensure that we continually build on the good work of regulation review and that it does not become a process for governments, whether it is this one or the next one, to abuse. We do not want to see a vast abuse of the power found within Bill S-6 to have an annual review of regulations to toss out regulations a government may not like. That would hurt, for example, regular everyday people. That would hurt innovation in our country. These are two important aspects of how our country should be governed, by balancing those two interests.

From the testimony from the committee related to Bill S-6, we heard that it proposes 46 amendments to 29 acts under 12 departments and agencies. This may seem like a huge and cumbersome amount, but I want to remind members of the chamber that these are minor and, according to the independent committee, low risk. However, it is our job to ensure that, during a line-by-line review in committee, those interests of business, of consumers, and of labour and environmental groups are heard. It is important to do that because we can ensure the future-proofing process. That is the part I am most concerned about. How can we have an annual review with a good and well-established scope, so we cannot go so far outside those boundaries, so who knows how many governments in the future would be utilizing this process.

In addition to regulations that are being amended within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we also see some amendments within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Let us consider the problems there.

One of the greatest problems in Canada right now is the lack of an ability to ensure that travel documents are in the hands of those who need them most. Every single MP in this chamber, I know for a fact, has had to deal with immigration in their office. When they deal with that immigration work, they find out that the processes are delayed. Every MP, whether Liberal, Bloc, New Democrat or Conservative, finds out that the processes are not working. Even the members across the way on the Liberal bench know it is broken.

Therefore, I was really pleased to see that there is an amendment within Bill S-6 to make that easier. It is a process that looks at ensuring that people can apply some of these processes online, in particular allowing for applications within existing visa applications to be used and duplicated in the PR system of applications. That is a common sense amendment. Why were we doing it differently before? These are the kinds of problems that contribute to these backlogs.

It is important that we pass a bill such as this to ensure an amendment like this works, and so that IRCC has more and better tools to process the information it already has, rather than asking regular folks to do the same application twice. Why would we make them do that?

It is important that these regulations are passed, that we ensure consultation during the committee phase and, finally, that we ensure the future annual amendments and review of regulations process is one that takes into consideration the unique factors of balancing the need to protect regular Canadians and consumers with the need of ensuring that businesses can continue to innovate and make our country great.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed my colleague was talking about future-proofing Canada. The member spoke a bit about agriculture, and we see a lot of regulations and burdens on our farmers in Canada. Whether it is added burdens at the PMRA, whether it is the clean fuel standards or adding carbon tax to farmers, the costs keep going up, and regulations and red tape keep happening. It is going to put our farmers out of business, especially those in fresh food production.

I am worried about the future of our fruit and vegetable farmers in Canada. Nobody wants to get in the business anymore because of the burdens and regulations they are facing every day. I wonder if the member would like to comment on what he would like to see happen to get rid of some of these regulations so we can protect our future food production in this country, and protect our fruit and vegetable farmers in Canada.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her advocacy and her good work in relation to protecting our farmers.

As a rancher myself, we have had to deal with these kinds of issues, particularly when mad cow disease was an outbreak in Canada. Cattle ranchers, like my family and I, had to deal with those regulations. It was a really difficult time for producers, particularly cattle producers. We saw some of the lowest prices per pound of beef across the country. It was almost in the negative. It was a terrible time, but we understood why those regulations existed.

As a matter of fact, we had to ensure that regulations were improved after that crisis so we could become more competitive. There needs to be a balance between the public safety of Canadians and competitiveness.

I know, as someone who has had to go through some of these regulations with cattle, the regulations are difficult and hard, but we also have to remember that they are good for consumers. It makes our businesses stronger when we can demonstrate we are the best in the business and we are going to do the best for Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that stood out from my colleague's speech was the part specifically related to Bill C-27 and the importance of regulating artificial intelligence.

He mentioned the great work done by the member for Windsor West. Perhaps that member's most concrete contribution to this issue so far was to divide the debate, until the NDP eventually asked for two votes on the same issue, which meant that we arrived 15 minutes late in committee. I will spare my colleagues all the details.

Nevertheless, considering that this bill should have been passed in 2018-19, we get the sense that some members have tried to delay and stall. Could the NDP not be part of the solution to speed things up with the government, especially when it comes to paperwork done by our administrators and agricultural producers?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe it the responsibility of all members in the House to ensure that the benefits for Canadians and Québécois are there.

It is important that we work together on all aspects that advance the interests of Canadians. Partisanship is often one of those things we may have to make a sacrifice for. We have to define, in our own minds, what is worth our time and what is worth our position.

On the issue of AI, I hope that all members of the House will stand to defend the interests of Canadians. It is no secret that we are on the frontier of AI, and it is a kind of frontier that will change our lives forever. We are living in a whole other world right now, and it is about to change. AI will transform the world. It will transform Canada. It will transform our economy.

We need all members of the House to take it seriously. We need to expedite a framework to ensure that AI is regulated in this country for the protection of Canadians and Québécois.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the theme of regulations and agriculture. I grew up on an apple orchard. My father sprayed those apples with DDT. We had a big bag of DDT under the sink that my brother and I used to play with. Then we found out that DDT was destroying the environment. It was driving bird populations to extinction.

We then brought in regulations and those regulations are there, not to be a barrier or a gatekeeper for farmers, but to protect all of us in this country from the adverse effects of these chemicals. We had to shift to different pesticides, and that process continues. These regulations are there for a reason. They are not there just because someone thinks it is an idea that would harm farmers. They are there to protect the public and the environment. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the world continues to change, and as Canada continues to define our greater role in the world, not only as an innovator of products with innovation across many industries, but also as a producer of good food and high-quality products, we need to ensure that we remain a country that has the best products, the best orchards, the best beef and the best producers in the world.

The way to do that is to not just let anyone do anything they want, such as, for example, spraying chemicals that harm the environment or getting around regulations to get beef to market that has not been properly inspected. It is important. These regulations protect the quality of our Canadian producers.

When people say there are gatekeepers in the way, they damage the reputation of producers. They damage the reputation of farmers when things go wrong. It is not a matter of when things go wrong, it is a matter of if they go wrong. Why not bring in regulations that prevent the likelihood of that and keep our products on top?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty and burdens that are put onto our producers, and there is one issue that has come up multiple times from constituents of mine. It is the issue of trying to get a federally regulated vet to go down to the border to do something as simple as scan an ear tag so a rancher can bring his bull back across the border.

It seems at times we have unnecessary regulations in place, especially when we have a big shortage of federally regulated vets in this country. There are other vets who are also licensed and regulated to a very high standard who could probably do the work just as well as the vet who goes down to the border to do it, but there seems to be unnecessary regulations that get in the way. However, we do not see the government moving to address some of those kinds of regulations.

I am wondering if the member has any comments on that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I grew up not too far from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, and I know how strong the economy is for producers there. In fact, we have traded many bulls and different kinds of animals with many of the producers there.

The member is right when he talks about the issue of the labour shortages we are seeing at border crossings when it comes to the enforcement of regulations. As a matter of fact, I think the member hit the nail on the head, in the fact that we need to see more veterinarians and more folks who actually have the ability to regulate the implementation and enforcement of regulations.

I agree that if we have regulations and lack the enforcement, why do we have regulations? I disagree, however, that we should just get rid of the regulations. I think the actual solution is to ensure we keep the regulation and, as a matter of fact, we should modernize that regulation and ensure we actually have the labour to enforce it. That is one of the pieces that is missing. Maybe AI could play a part in this. That is one of the areas where we have to make certain that we actually put in the AI framework.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know that this is a difficult bill, because it covers so many regulations in so many different acts. I am sure the member has also been exposed to many issues and barriers that are caused by regulations, being an indigenous person himself. I wonder if he can speak to why he has made the determination that he has and whether he does or does not support Bill S-6, and speak to what it means for indigenous peoples.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Nunavut is one of the strongest advocates for indigenous rights in this place, and without her we would be absent a kind of justice and a kind of dignity for indigenous people.

Now I will speak directly on the question. Yes, as a matter of fact, indigenous people need to be at the table, and although New Democrats are recommending a yes vote on this, we are sincere about our request to invite members of Parliament across party lines to the committee stage to invite groups that have not been better heard. We know that business and industry have been heard through an independent process already, but the groups that are missing from that consultation are labour, environmental and indigenous groups. We need to see these three important and incredible groups come to the table at the committee stage and have the willing ear of the government to actually make those amendments credible and enforceable.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this evening.

I am going to use a lot of my time to talk about something that is really important in my riding, so much so that it is even included in the name of my riding, which, of course, is Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

In southern Saskatchewan, we are blessed to have one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the entire world, and that is Grasslands National Park. If people are wondering how it all relates to a government bill on federal regulations, I can assure them that it does.

In part 3, clause 85 of Bill S-6, it deals specifically with the issue of species at risk. That is where the bill makes reference to an organization named COSEWIC, which the government has identified as the only organization to be used for determining whether a species belongs on a list and to determine what level of concern there should be. This is the type of issue facing Grasslands National Park. For the moment I will try my best to fill everyone in on the background story that is involved in this.

To say the relationship with local stakeholders and producers has been rocky at best would be an understatement. During the park's early days, in classic big government fashion, the government booted the local ranchers out of the park and refused to let them graze the grasslands, stating that they were doing so to protect species at risk but also to protect the native prairie grass.

However, over time, the number of species in the park dwindled and declined, and the quality of the grass deteriorated. Researchers began to notice that all of the species at risk had relocated themselves out of the park to the other side of the fence and into the private ranchers' pastures. Why would that happen? Well, without a true keystone species to graze the grass, many of the smaller species became easy targets for their predators to eat.

Of course, it used to be the case that buffalo were the keystone species for that area. When that changed, it was possible, in their absence, for cattle to replace them as the main grazers and managers of the land in the park. That is what happened until the government decided to put a stop to it.

Once all of the bureaucratic interference was removed and the ranchers were allowed to graze in the park once again, the grasslands began to flourish and the vibrant species all returned to the park along with the cattle. It showed that there is a very delicate balance to be maintained between nature and human activity. They can work together and they can benefit each other.

There was a good balance in the grasslands until some people from the government decided they knew better and needed to fix something that was not broken. It sounds very familiar to many issues that we face today. Let us fast-forward to present day and see what is happening in the park.

As I mentioned earlier, the government has appointed a group named COSEWIC, which stands for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, through the Species at Risk Act, as the official designator of species at risk by making recommendations to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

At the time, there seems to be no accountability mechanisms for the actions of COSEWIC, and Bill S-6 is not changing that. To add to this, the adversarial role the government has taken toward the local stewards of the land has become a growing disaster once again in Grasslands National Park.

The difference is that the ranchers have a built-in incentive for taking the absolute best care not only of the grasslands, but also the species that exist within and around the fences of their pastures.

COSEWIC has identified the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. It is not yet listed as a schedule 3 species at risk but the fact that it is even on such a list makes one wonder why that is.

The black-tailed prairie dog is a species that thrives not only in Saskatchewan but all the way down through the United States to the Mexican border and probably even further into Mexico itself. A quick Google search would actually verify that all the way through the United States there is a very vibrant population of this prairie dog.

Despite the readily available information, does COSEWIC take that into consideration? Does the minister even bother to check into it himself?

Again, we have the issue of human interference with nature by COSEWIC and other scientists.

For example, anyone who has ever lived in Saskatchewan knows that when there is a drought or dryer conditions, gophers and these prairie dogs thrive and can rapidly overtake an area. I have seen entire quarter sections of crop and hay land completely disappear within two years or even less. However, this is what COSEWIC's website states:

The Black-tailed Prairie Dog is a burrowing and colony-forming member of the squirrel family and is confined to only 12 square kilometres of grassland habitat in southern Saskatchewan. Initially assessed as Special Concern by COSEWIC in 2000, increasing threats posed by droughts and a bacterial disease could rapidly eradicate this species.

This is where local knowledge is vitally important, yet COSEWIC refuses to utilize it. The prairie dog is not confined to 13 kilometres. Ask any rancher around the park. The species has spread and is continuing to spread in the regions the researchers apparently have missed.

Those involved on the agricultural side are more aware of what is going on. This is something one has to get right if one wants to properly manage the local wildlife.

Remember what I said earlier about the effects of grazing on species on the park. I will now bring up another more recent example. The prairie dog and the sage grouse are intertwined with each other. The prairie dog eats the roots of sagebrush as they are tunnelling in the ground, but the sage grouse needs the same plant for shelter and to protect itself from other species that would be looking to eat it. If the prairie dogs overtake the park, it is going to eliminate their shelter and chase the sage grouse out of the park.

The problem can turn out to be different depending on whether there are too few prairie dogs or we are at risk of having too many. How does nature control populations of mammals in the animal kingdom? There are two main ways. There are others, but the two that are most important are predators and diseases.

However, COSEWIC is interfering in nature's natural course, everything from dusting for fleas to hand feeding prairie dogs, which is causing them to not gather food and get themselves ready for winter as they become reliant on humans to feed them. With all this, it seems like history may be repeating itself with Grasslands National Park. If we do not act with accurate information and if we do not try to maintain the right balance, this organization will mess with and continue to ruin a delicate ecosystem.

The most frustrating part is we have seen this kind of thing happen before. I heard many people share their concerns about it for a very long time. The government's own website admits local stakeholders have a difference of opinion, but the department and its activists do not care.

The people of southern Saskatchewan demand accountability and they demand respect from the government. These are multi-generational ranchers who have seen to the sustainable development of grasslands for over a century, and this rogue organization with no government oversight is causing problems. There is no need to get in the way of ranchers' way of life, especially when doing so will put more species at risk onto the list.

The park is important both environmentally and economically, and those interests go together. If it is not maintained well enough due to errors made by the government, the local municipalities will also suffer from the lost revenue. We are dealing with an imbalanced approach to the environment that is showing signs of failure.

In many ways it is similar to the problems we are seeing with developing our natural resources, which is also mentioned in Bill S-6. It is nice for a change to have a government bill that wants to reduce regulatory burdens instead of expand them, but the changes are too small compared to what is really needed.

When one thinks about the bigger picture, we are not yet seeing a full-scale reduction of over-regulation when it comes to our energy or agricultural producers. Right now, there are still farmers who are afraid that at any moment the government will restrict their use of fertilizer even though they are doing the best they can to use less of it while growing more food to feed the world. At the same time, if the government is going to do that, it is also pushing ahead with a fuel standard that creates more demand for the same crops required for food and for biofuels. The last thing those farmers will need is higher demand while being able to grow less of their product because of government regulations.

There are also some incoming electricity regulations which the Premier of Saskatchewan is deeply concerned about. These new regulations keep coming along while the Liberals want to pretend they care about efficiency with Bill S-6.

I will also say time and time again the Liberal government's signature policy of impact assessment has been stopping resource development across the board. This has definitely been the case for pipelines in the oil and gas sector, but it is a lot more than that too.

In my work on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources or in meeting with energy stakeholders, I keep hearing about different projects left in jeopardy because the impact assessment is unnecessarily burdensome. We are talking about not getting ahead with critical minerals, which the Liberals always try to boast about. For example, we are not on track to source enough lithium for EV batteries in terms of our trade agreements. They have been ignoring this problem for years.

Impact assessment prevents mining projects from getting started because they will take too long. It can create problems with forestry. More recently, there has been talk of potential problems coming up for nuclear energy as well. This is about investment coming into our country and over-regulation in a lot of these areas, which a bill like this should be addressing but is not.

Our Canadian prosperity was built on natural resources. That will remain true for the future. At the moment, the Liberal government's policies are getting in everyone's way. It is managing to destroy our successful industries while also getting in the way of any future industries it says we need to support.

Sadly, Bill S-6 is yet another missed opportunity on the part of the Liberal government. It does not go far enough with removing gatekeepers or improving the lives of Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech made me reflect on the importance of decentralization and local governments. One of the notable examples he gave involving the prairie dog is a result of super-centralization. Making decisions that apply from coast to coast to coast has serious repercussions in areas that are really crucial to the development of our towns and our lands.

My question is pretty straightforward. Should we rely more on our local governments to put in place regulations, since that is the purpose of this bill? These are often minor regulations, but they can make a difference in the development of our farmlands and our towns.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, in a lot of ways, the hon. member is right. The closer a level of government is to the people, the more effective and more pointed its regulations are going to be. We have seen the example with the regulation of the park. We have the local rural municipality, which knows this. These are people who have been ranching and farming in the area for multiple generations, for over a century. They have been good stewards of the land for a very long period of time. They know what the important species are. They know how to properly take care of the land.

There are other areas, like natural resources, for example. I think the member opposite would agree that natural resources are the sole jurisdiction of the provinces. However, the federal government likes to wade into it all the time. We do not see the government addressing those concerns by removing regulations in this bill.

I think we need to focus a bit more on jurisdiction, respecting jurisdiction where jurisdiction needs to be respected.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for including provisions in this bill regarding species at risk, because this act actually has a lot of detrimental impact in my region. There are two specific species, one of which is the barren-ground caribou. On the marine side, it is the Atlantic walrus. Those populations are known to be quite dramatic. It is hard to determine if they are at the time a species at risk.

I see that in this bill, Bill S-6, there are regulations talking about the importance of creating a recovery strategy, but I wonder if the member would agree that whatever plans are being created about species at risk, indigenous peoples must be at the forefront of the decision-making.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the point that the hon. member raised is actually a very important one. If we are going to implement recovery strategies, local knowledge is of utmost importance, and there is no more important local knowledge than that of the indigenous people, whether it is up in Nunavut, or in the northern part of the Prairies, or even in the southern part of the Prairies. They have been on the land for centuries, for a very long period of time. Again, getting back to that local knowledge, people who have been there and have a long history of being there have seen how species change, how species can adapt, how the land has transformed and changed over the years, and what the delicate balance is there.

I think it is extremely important that we rely on local knowledge. The member has that part of it right, absolutely.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it really feels like I just read an issue of National Geographic.

As Bill S-6 goes into its third rendition, I would like to ask my colleague if he would prefer more of a stakeholder consultation approach or a hands-off government approach, and what he thinks the citizens and stakeholders in his riding would prefer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question because, too often, big government comes in and ruins it. It consults with the wrong stakeholders. When consultations were being done, the government website said that there was a lot of emphasis put on online participants. We do not even know where those online participants were from. They could have been from Europe, for all we know. Would they have the best interests at heart for the land, for the ranchers, for the producers, but also for the species at risk there in the park? Absolutely not.

The local people know what the balance is there. In this particular instance and many other instances, a hands-off approach by the government would be preferred. It would be way more beneficial, both to the species and to the producers.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-6. I think we are all pleased to speak to a bill that seeks to cut red tape, reduce delays and increase efficiency.

When it comes to increased flexibility and efficiency, the answer is yes. We are there to support that. That is what we want to do. When it comes to reducing delays, the answer is yes. The member for Joliette said earlier that this bill was introduced in 2018 and that we are debating it in 2023. Someone asked why that was. I am tempted to tell them that this bill is moving through the House at a speed that is directly proportional to the speed at which this government takes action. We spend our time waiting for things to happen.

I want to make a little aside about what is going on in the news. For months now, information has been coming out in dribs and drabs about potential foreign interference in our democratic process, and nothing is being done. The much-talked-about public inquiry will probably happen, but likely not before next year, because that is how slowly things move in the House. Fortunately, we are here. The opposition is here to pressure this government into taking action. We will do that today for that reason. Yes, we are here to support efficiency, but we will not support a lack of transparency.

What we like is transparency. Some parts of Bill S‑6 have me concerned a bit. Others are obvious. There are, for example, changes to Innovation, Science and Economic Development to make it easier to withdraw a mediation application if a settlement is reached. I hope this will happen, as it seems obvious and is only normal. The best part is that it would clear the court backlogs. There is also the matter of having meters read through other means instead of getting a person to read them. I hope this will happen. There are other things, such as allowing interim authorizations under trade conditions. Earlier my colleagues were talking about trademarks and having greater efficiency and fluidity. I am okay with that. The details of this bill still need to be studied and that is where the committee comes in. There is less confusion for business corporations, co-operatives and not-for-profit organizations when it comes to the distinction between annual reports and annual statements. As we know, our good government asks people for so much paperwork that they get all mixed up.

There is also the immigration issue. I would like to tell a story about someone from my riding. It is the story of a foreign worker who applied to renew her work permit. She had applied for permanent residency and was waiting. This Spanish-speaking woman was buried under paperwork, sometimes in English and other times in French, and she became very confused. In the meantime, she received her Quebec selection certificate, and, naively, she did not apply to renew her work permit. Let us put ourselves in her shoes. It is starting to become the norm to receive all kinds of paperwork, to have to deal with different levels of government, and to have different deadlines at each level. Sometimes, the second government is so slow that the first application has to be resubmitted. This will again cost money, because it is the fault of the second government. Of course that does not matter to the second government. The person must pay. Everyone knows that the second government I am referring to is obviously the federal government. The Bloc will have only one government, and it will be the right one.

I was saying that because she had received her Quebec selection certificate, she did not apply to renew her work permit. A few days later, when she went to see her employer to celebrate, her employer realized that it was the wrong document and told her that she had to apply to renew her work permit. Unfortunately, the deadline for the renewal application was the day before. We are not talking six months prior. I do not want to get angry here, but it is hard not to. These people we are talking about, here in this disconnected Parliament, we met them in person and we saw them crying, sitting at our desk. It was not six months later, it was the next day, yet we could not get the renewal application accepted. If someone applies for a renewal while their permit is active, they can continue to work until they get the new one. It does not matter because the application has been submitted.

However, if an individual applies after the deadline, too bad. They have to wait three months to get a new work permit. The person I am talking about had to live on charity for several weeks, in a G7 country.

I will end my digression by saying that it is good to reduce wait times.

My time is running out, and I still have lots I want to talk about. I have to talk about agriculture, but before I do, I must express my doubts about the part that deals with oil and gas. I am not sure why. Perhaps it is because of Bay du Nord, or because of the new offshore oil and gas exploration licenses. When I see the words “natural resources” and “oil” together, and that the requirement to publish information is being lifted, I have some serious doubts. There will be a lot of work to do. Is it because they want to sneak things past us?

I will stop talking about oil now. I could talk about it for another 10 minutes, but I only have three and a half minutes left.

With regard to the agricultural industry, when I hear that the government wants to facilitate the recognition of international standards, there are a few things that come to mind. I have had some traumatic experiences with the federal government since I became an MP three and a half years ago. One of them was the review of the thresholds for glyphosate, fungicide and herbicide residues, which the government tried to quietly sneak past us during the construction holiday one summer when the weather was hot and sunny. The Liberals thought that it would go unnoticed. I remember that we were dumbfounded. It was done without any kind of announcement or anything. What was even more shocking was that our farmers told us that they did not know where that measure came from, that they had never asked for it and that they were respecting the thresholds. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency told us that it was to align with international standards.

I am pleased to see that my colleague from Beauce is here because he will be happy that I am talking about this. When I hear that we are going to align with international standards and increase the thresholds for pesticide and fungicide residue, the message that I am getting is that we are going to bring in poor quality products from other countries, as is too often the case.

There is talk of reciprocity of standards. I am all for streamlining and adopting international standards to make trade easier, but I do not want us to lower these standards. I do not want us to fail to meet the expectations of our constituents, our consumers. People are expecting us to ensure quality. Our producers are proud, strong and efficient. They deliver quality. I do not want to undermine that because all of sudden someone decides to accept international standards. Carrots from Mexico may contain more pesticides than carrots that grow in Quebec. There is nonsense that does not appear in the official speeches, but exists on the ground daily. This is important.

Aligning our standards can be useful, but we have to do so effectively and quickly, by relying on science and using the precautionary principle. I do not often hear anyone talk about the precautionary principle.

Today, the Minister of Agriculture announced assurances that seeds created with gene editing would be monitored. That is good. We are pleased, but the monitoring will be done by the private sector with subsequent supervision by the state. I am less keen on that. I think that is the government's responsibility. I think we are capable of doing this effectively.

We are in a situation where the state is not moving quickly enough, and we are going to let the public sector take action. I do not think that is the right thing to do. Last year, we had a problem with the approval of linuron, a product used when growing carrots. There was a small change in the formulation, and since Canada's study and review processes are so slow, the product was not approved. Our producers contacted us in a panic, told us they would not be able to grow their crop and that Quebeckers would be eating carrots from the United States, which uses the same product. Sometimes, we have to use common sense with regulations.

I could probably keep talking about this for two or three hours, but I will stop now as my time has expired.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with my colleague on the issue of glyphosate spraying. I know that Quebec has banned it in the forests. In my region in northern Ontario, there is something terribly eerie about walking through a forest that is dead, where there are no sounds of bugs or birds. Driving up through the Temagami region, on Highway 11 and Highway 17, we hardly ever use bug spray for our windows anymore, because there are not that many bugs.

The idea that glyphosate could be used to kill off everything in a forest after a cutover and said to be safe is deeply concerning. Given the release of “The Monsanto Papers” and international studies that have been done on the dangers, what does it mean when our forests in the north, in New Brunswick and in other regions are being subject to massive aerial spraying of glyphosate over our cutover areas?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, we would have to determine who is responsible for that spraying, but certainly, if what the member for Timmins—James Bay is reporting is true, it is very unfortunate. It means that things moved too fast and too much of the product was used. I am glad he asked me that question, because it enables me to talk about something I have not had time to address.

In some places, we are being told that the minister will be allowed to enact practices from the private sector or from abroad by way of regulation and have them recognized. That may be fine, but it depends on how it is done. It must be properly studied. We cannot be careless.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question based on a classic speech by my colleague from Joliette. I hope I am giving proper attribution to this speech. We are going to play Jeopardy! I will read a quote, and my colleague will try to guess who said it and how it relates to Bill S-6.

The quote says that consumers, the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Quebec government are asking for transparency. Organic farmers need to know the sources of their supply, and citizens have a right to know what is on their plates, including gene-edited products. We do not want to ban this technology. We want to regulate it, ensure that the public and farmers have that information and thus contribute to a better future for everyone.

Who said that?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice that we can have a little fun on an evening like this when we are working until midnight.

I think the answer is the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is the matter of the intergenerational transfer of businesses. That is a very important issue in agriculture. Some legislative amendments were made to change the way capital gains are treated, which makes intergenerational transfers more equitable.

Now, many businesses are saying that this transfer has be done gradually. Sometimes, the parents let their children buy shares in the company or family farm bit by bit. That is something that many businesses asked for, but unfortunately, the law does not allow for that practice right now.

I am wondering whether the member would like comment on improving the business climate, particularly for family farms.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, succession planning is very important. I thank my colleague for raising this subject.

Yes, some latitude must be given. It is not all black and white. There are grey areas. The bill allows for a certain transition, but the deadlines are indeed restricted. I think there could be more flexibility in that regard.

The government was worried about tax evasion. I would like to say to the members of this government that if they want to prevent tax evasion, they should go back and listen to the speech given tonight by my colleague from Joliette. They will learn a lot, and they will find out where the money is and how tax evasion is really happening.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

I would remind members that if they plan to speak, they need to stand to be recognized.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was stuck to the floor with red tape. I do not know who sat here before me. It is everywhere here in Ottawa.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member about the red tape. That is a prop and I would ask him not to use that.

The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know who sat here before me, but it is everywhere. They were doing their best to cut through it.

These days, we would need a chainsaw to cut through the red tape in Ottawa. With Bill S-6, the Liberals have brought nail clippers. As Canada's shadow minister for red-tape reduction, I am pleased to contribute to this important debate tonight.

Bill S-6 proposes to make 46 modest changes to update and modernize 29 acts, affecting 12 different federal departments and agencies. They are minor at best and, unfortunately, do practically nothing to address the burden of red tape facing Canadians. At its core, reducing red tape is about making government work well for our country's citizens. It is not about deregulation for its own sake. It is about making sure that Canada's regulations do not hamper our citizens' ability to innovate and improve.

It is also about ensuring that our country is globally competitive and that we are positioned to increase the prosperity of future generations of Canadians. Fundamentally, Canadians just want to go about their lives and conduct their business without complicated processes and roadblocks put in place by government departments, bureaucrats and consultants. These are the people who act as gatekeepers to stop anything from getting done in this country and prevent anything from being built.

Red tape overseen by these government gatekeepers is stifling Canadians. It cripples innovation and competitiveness and limits productivity and economic growth. This is not some niche issue. Any Canadian who has ever had to fill out a government form knows how hard and frustrating red tape can be. Sadly, under the Liberals, red tape has gotten worse. The insignificant changes proposed in Bill S-6 amount to just a drop in the ocean when we consider how onerous the Liberals' red-tape regime has become.

Over the past eight years, the Liberal government has increased public service spending by 53%, costing taxpayers an additional $21 billion. Of course, this has not resulted in better outcomes or better service delivery for Canadians. Instead, Canadians continue to face endless delays, a greater regulation burden and more red tape.

According to the Federation of Independent Business, red tape costs Canadians nearly $11 billion a year. It is unbelievable. There is also a great social cost. The amount of time Canadians spend on regulatory compliance continues to be significant. This causes great stress, especially for small businesses and vulnerable Canadians. This year, the CFIB awarded the Liberals a C, which is a failing grade. It noted that the government does not accurately measure the impact of federal regulations on individuals or properly report on what progress has been made to reduce red tape. This has consequences for our citizens and for our economy.

Canada is ranked 53rd out of 140 countries in terms of the burden of government regulations. Canada performs far worse than comparable countries. We are predicted to be the worst-performing advanced economy to 2030 and for decades afterward. The ease of doing business index, which measures regulatory efficiencies, has seen Canada continue to decline, going from fourth in 2007 to 23rd in 2020. These metrics all tell the same story. As a result of Canada's onerous red tape, our country's economic reputation has been tarnished. Delays and red tape continue to drive away foreign investment.

The global index measuring foreign investment considers Canada as a whole to be more restrictive when it comes to foreign investment than all other OECD countries, except for Iceland, Mexico and New Zealand. The amount of foreign direct investment into Canada as a percentage of the GDP remains well below that of such countries as Sweden, Germany and Spain.

Unfortunately, addressing red tape, improving economic growth and promoting foreign investment have not been priorities for the federal Liberal government. According to research conducted by the Library of Parliament, the government has never sought to count the total number of federal regulations. However, there are at least 4,883 in the Consolidated Regulations of Canada alone. With only 46 slight changes, the measures proposed in Bill S-6 barely scratch the surface of the regulatory reform we need in Canada.

The lack of action also applies to the overall approach of the government. It is telling that I do not have a direct counterpart in the Liberal cabinet. There are ministers responsible for red-tape reduction in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, as well as across many other jurisdictions around the world, but this is not the case federally. Instead, the task of reducing red tape remains a footnote and an afterthought to the many other responsibilities of the Treasury Board president.

Again, this is a recurring theme. As a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, I routinely see the lack of attention red tape receives from the government. It has become commonplace for Liberal ministers to ignore repeated requests by the committee to address problematic or outdated regulations and red tape within their portfolios. I think my hon. colleague from Mirabel spoke to this tonight. In many cases, these requests have been outstanding for years, with no attempt to fix the regulations, even when they continue to affect and impact Canadians. This is unacceptable.

Reducing red tape should not be a partisan issue, yet the Liberals seem to think that it is the goal to have more regulations and that a bigger, more bloated government is always better. They do this without any regard for the negative consequences of red tape for Canadians or whether objectives or outcomes are being met.

The Conservative approach to reducing red tape could not be more different. It involves chainsaws, not nail clippers. We believe there is a better way than token measures and insignificant actions, such as those we see in Bill S-6. Canada's Conservatives are committed to cutting red tape. We will prioritize plain-language laws that will eliminate bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and make it easier for Canadians to fill out government forms and access government services. We will simplify the tax system, cap government spending and introduce a pay-as-you-go law requiring an equal amount of savings for any new government expenditures.

We will also address the housing crisis and support businesses looking to expand by removing big city gatekeepers and NIMBY politicians. These are the people who put up red tape and barriers to block any expansion of our housing supply. These are concrete measures that will make life more affordable and put Canadians back in control of their lives. After all, it is the government that is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.

There is no doubt that many regulations need to be addressed far beyond the scope of Bill S-6. Much more needs to be done to cut red tape in this country to support Canadians and encourage economic growth.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would also take this opportunity to thank him for his bill about financial protections for vegetable producers, which we will be happy to consider soon.

My colleague talked about regulations and small cosmetic changes that are inadequate. We need to be more thorough. I would like to give him the opportunity to talk about regulations that apply to temporary foreign workers, which we talk about all the time. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we must have raised this issue six times in reports. There has been so much talk and so little action that it has become a joke.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. Can he mention one or two quick and easy changes that could be made to improve the lives of people and producers?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so happy that my hon. colleague is supporting my bill for the financial protection of fresh fruit and vegetable farmers. As the hon. member knows, I represent the soup and salad bowl of Canada, so farming issues are important. I can think of two or three farms in my riding that have now had to hire full-time people just to navigate the paperwork that the temporary foreign worker program has.

People talk about cutting regulations. This is not about that. This is about making this country more efficient. I can think of a cucumber farmer in my riding, for example, who has had three different labels in the last three years. Why does this matter to Canadians? It increases the cost of the product, it costs farmers and it costs the country. We have to become more efficient.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have with Bill S-6 is that a lot of the amendments focus on eliminating paper. I agree with this to some degree, but I also recognize, as a person who represents a more rural and remote riding, that not all people have digital access. As the seniors critic for the NDP, I also recognize that a lot of seniors contact my office requesting paper copies of information or forms from different federal departments.

I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on that. Does he agree that we need to work with our systems to ensure there is access to information for people who do not have digital access?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I do. This is about common sense. I have seniors in my riding as well who are not well versed in emailing, and they do require paper copies of things. I think we can become efficient to give those people what they require and have an and/or part to it. We still require some things to be done via fax and some things to be done via paper, and some things are done electronically. We have to have a system where there is compromise so that it works for the people, works for Canadians and becomes more efficient.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague indicated, there is no counterpart for a minister of reducing red tape on the government side. One initiative I am impressed with that the shadow minister has undertaken is a website where Canadians can submit their ideas for reducing red tape. It is www.cutredtape.ca. Can he share one or two good ideas he has seen as a result of this initiative?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, if anyone is watching tonight, they can go to www.cutredtape.ca if they have experienced red tape.

I think this is about the frustration people have. A business owner reached out to me just last week and said they own a chain of duty-free stores. The government came in and said they had to put all kinds of different labels with ingredients and nutritional facts on all their products in the store to comply with Canadian laws.

The funny thing is that everything is for export. None of it is being consumed in Canada or being taken into Canada. It is all leaving the country. Why would we have these label requirements for those outlets? These are common-sense things we need to address.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I first thought I wanted to get into politics I was about 14 years old, and it was always my dream to speak to regulatory modernization. I was one of those kids who said that if I could make it to Parliament to talk about regulatory modernization, I would know I really succeeded in life. I want to talk about this, because I think it is an important issue for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When I meet with farmers in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, which is the number one producer of economic growth for our GDP, and when I speak to small businesses, I ask them, “What things make your lives more difficult?” Members would think the farmers might say they have to get up at 5 a.m. and have to do this and that, and that there are always more things for them to do than they have time for. However, what the farmer will say is that the regulatory and tax burdens in this country keep them up at night and take up so much of their time. The same thing is said when we talk to small businesses.

I think the real disconnect is that when regulations get passed by the Liberals, they assume that somehow, much like in a minister's office, 1,000 people will be there to make sure someone checks box A, circles things in the right direction and does all these kinds of things. However, most small businesses, which are the driver of economic activity in this country and truly the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, are very small organizations. It is often one or two people working hard to understand what the regulatory burden is for their business, on top of trying to make their business successful and profitable. That is the challenge we have all across this country.

I want to divert momentarily, because the other big thing they talk about besides regulations is the carbon tax. The carbon tax is such a punishing thing for Canadian businesses, especially in the farming sector.

I had the opportunity to visit farms on our last break week. I met with a number of farmers and I asked them, “How much carbon tax did you end up paying in the last year?” The first farm I went to said they paid $17,000 in carbon taxes. Can members imagine how much this impacts that family's bottom line? That is $17,000 that they do not have for investing in a new combine, for investing in more sustainable agricultural practices or for putting food on the table.

These are the kinds of difficult things being experienced. However, when we add to that the difficulty of complying with regulations from across this country, it is a burden wearing down Canadians. That is why it was so great to hear my colleague talk about the plan to cut red tape. It is something a Conservative government would absolutely do.

One interesting thing is that the bill would make 46 slight changes to regulations. I had the opportunity to look at the Government of Canada's forward regulatory plan for 2021-23. While the bill is going to nibble around the edges of 46 slight changes, the plan is to bring in 270 new regulations. This is exactly the problem: We are going to nibble around these 46 things and then bring in 270 new ones.

Now, I am not very good math, but I would say that is approximately 234 more regulations going in than are potentially coming out, and that is how this government works. Somehow it thinks that adding to regulatory burden, making things more complex and more difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to understand and implement, is the way forward for economic success. However, we know it is not, and we see that in projections for Canada's economic growth going forward. We are continuously moving down.

We are moving down on the productivity scale as well. We are becoming less and less productive. I suggest that people are less productive because they are spending more time in the office trying to navigate through the myriad of red tape regulations than they are in putting productive effort into their businesses. This is the challenge we have after eight years of the Liberal government: more regulations, more all the time.

The other problem with the regulatory process from the government is that it is regulate first and ask questions after. It does not do the hard work of seeing whether there is a way to promulgate regulations that would not be so burdensome and that would not be so hard for businesses to comply with.

I am going to speak very briefly to one example of that: film plastic regulations. The Government of Canada just said it thinks we should get to 60% recyclable content there. However, the technology does not exist. It is not even close to existing. The government is therefore bringing forward a regulation, which may be well-intentioned, to add recycled content into plastic film, but it has not taken the time to figure out whether or not it is actually possible. What does that do? Imagine being in a business and finding out that the business now has to comply with this regulation, but its own scientists and its own R and D are saying they have no idea how this is possible. This is just one tiny example going on across the country from coast to coast to coast.

Why is it so hard for the government, if it is going to bring in a new regulation, to consult with businesses that are going to be affected before it brings in the regulation? That is how to find a path forward if it is going to bring in a new regulation. Instead, what the government does is it decides the path forward, and businesses need to comply whether they can or cannot. If they cannot, that is too bad; they will just leave the country. This is incredibly disturbing to me as a way to move forward with regulatory reform.

Another thing I want to talk about is giving the Minister of Transport the ability to make interim orders. This is a very broad discretion being granted to the Minister of Transport. We know the Minister of Transport. He is the jolly fellow who has been governing the country with the chaos at our airports over the last two years. I do not know about other people in this chamber, but air travel in this country is not an enjoyable experience anymore. If our flight is on time, which is rare, there is some kind of chaos at the airport where we are landing, and we are sitting for an extended period of time.

In my own recent experience when flying from Toronto to Ottawa, I showed up at the airport, got to the gate when it was time to board and then was told the pilots did not show up. Did they only know that 15 minutes before? Then there was a problem with the plane. Then the crew timed out. Then the flight was delayed even more. This is happening all over the place, and the number of complaints being filed with respect to this is astronomical.

My submission is that the last minister who should be getting any authority to make new regulations on anything is the minister who has governed during the chaos at our airports. It is all across the transportation sector too. This affects our supply chains. We know that part of the cost of living crisis in this country is a result of challenges with our supply chain. Who could fix these things? Maybe the Minister of Transport could, but clearly he cannot. Why are we going to give the Minister of Transport any more authority to make things worse than they already are in this country?

There is a bright future, though. The Conservative Party has promised that if any new regulation comes in, a regulation has to go out. This would not be 46 minor changes while bringing in 270 new regulations. It is going to be a bright new future. We are going to consult with businesses. We are going to reduce red tape and get the economy of Canada moving.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, first of all, I do not know what the education system is like in the member's riding of Dufferin—Caledon, but simple mathematics is what should be expected in Bill S-6.

I know that this legislation covers about 30 pieces of legislation to try to help reduce red tape. I wonder if the member agrees that, because the bill covers at least 30 pieces of legislation and the summary says, “repeal or amend provisions that have, over time, become barriers to innovation and economic growth”, the bill is actually a good way to make sure we reduce red tape.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. It would actually make some difference, and I did say that. The challenge is that it is not ambitious enough. As I pointed out, the Government of Canada's forward regulatory plan from 2021 to 2023 is to actually bring in 270 new regulations. Therefore, if it is going to take out 30, as the member said, or 46, as I said, and then bring in 270 new regulations, it is defeating the purpose. The government should be more ambitious. The government should be working harder to reduce red tape, and that is the real problem with this piece of legislation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, to build on the comment that the member made toward the end of his speech, I will say that I found it interesting that he was complaining that there are too many regulations in the country, but then said that the Conservative approach would be that, for every new regulation the Conservatives added, they would eliminate one. Would that not just result in the same number as already exist, which he is complaining is too high?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am preparing for the LSATs and this is a logic games test.

If we are bringing in a new regulation, we actually have to eliminate one. However, if we are just eliminating regulations, which is the plan, we take out a whole bunch. That is the difference. That is the trick that the member did not pick up on. We would actually take a whole bunch out, but if we do have to bring in a new one, we would also take one out. Regulation in this country would always shrink under a Conservative government.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did actually put forward, in a previous Parliament, a private member's bill called “think small first”, but have not been able to get it back through the legislative drafting. It was designed for small businesses, to ensure that there would be a regulatory review of any new regulation and to consider specifically how it would affect small businesses. It is based on a similar bill that was brought forward by the Green Party in the European Union. Therefore, I have a lot of sympathy, but not for cutting deeply without figuring out where we need regulations, because they help protect health and safety.

I just met with representatives of the College of Family Physicians, and they pointed out that there is a federal regulatory burden that costs our health care system because of forms that doctors have to fill out for the federal government. I wonder why that is not in this bill, and whether the member has any thoughts.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that that is exactly why I have said the bill is not ambitious enough. That is a great example. We should not just randomly cut regulations. We have to streamline regulations in a way that protects consumers and protects the environment but also protects those small and medium-sized businesses so they can grow and add to the economic prosperity of the country.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be in the chamber once again, and I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-6.

The stated purpose of the bill is to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes, make exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products, and make cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across governments.” The proposed measures were a result, I am told, of a public consultation by the Treasury Board Secretariat as well as a call-out to federal departments on what changes they required in order to further streamline the regulatory process.

The regulatory modernization bill would be instituted, I believe for the first time this year, to optimize regulatory processes between departments. This is the second regulatory modernization bill, with the first instance of this legislation having been introduced in 2019, under the Budget Implementation Act. The stated purpose of this legislation is to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes, make exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products, and make cross-border trade easier”.

In all, Bill S-6 proposes 46 minor changes to 29 acts that are administered by the following 12 organizations: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; the Canada Border Services Agency; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada; Health Canada; Transport Canada; and Parks Canada.

The first part of Bill S-6 would remove the requirement that a notice of bankruptcy be published in a local newspaper and allow the superintendent of bankruptcy to issue directives regarding how the notice will be published. That is actually a pretty interesting regulation. I cannot remember the last time I saw an advertisement in The Abbotsford News, the Mission City Record or The Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal outlining that someone was bankrupt. I think I might even follow up with a question to the Library of Parliament to find out the last time this regulation was used. Perhaps in the 21st century economy we can outline people's bankruptcy over Facebook.

The second regulation that Bill S-6 seeks to amend is to allow the application for mediation to be withdrawn, and for the trustee to proceed with an automatic discharge of the bankrupt, where an agreement had been breached between the trustee and the bankrupt before a scheduled mediation.

The third change that the bill would bring into effect is to make changes to the Weights and Measures Act to provide a temporary permission mechanism allowing the minister to permit temporary permissions for devices for use in trade, set terms and conditions, and allow the minister to revoke such permission.

The next regulation that the bill would deal with is to repeal the regulation regarding authority related to the requirement for contact information on vending machines that dispense liquids. The next one is to repeal the requirement for dealers and traders to notify Measurement Canada when they import a measuring device for use in their business. I guess that, with the onset of Amazon and the ease with which we can find a scale these days, it is probably a good regulation to repeal.

The next regulation would be to revise the coming-into-force date for recent amendments to the act in 2018's budget implementation act. The next one would be to change the term “annual return” to a term that is less confusing for stakeholders. I am not quite sure exactly what bill that would refer to.

Bill S-6 would update language pertaining to the handling of hazardous products in the workplace to ensure alignment with the Hazardous Products Act. I would be remiss if I did not mention another government bill, coming from the independent Senate on CEPA, and how changes to the Hazardous Products Act may intertwine with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The next area of regulation this bill seeks to change is to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to simplify the regulatory system for provincial agricultural marketing boards. I look forward to hearing from government members as to how, by simplifying the regulatory system for provincial agricultural marketing boards, we might see more local produce in our grocery stores. I come from a riding with the highest farm gate sales per capita in Canada and there is broad unanimity among the constituents in my riding that we need to see more local produce on the shelves. After the floods last year, this was of particular concern. Many of the prime blueberry fields in the province were flooded out when the Nooksack River in Washington state washed away the agricultural lands on Sumas Prairie. I look forward to seeing how the minister would enact such regulations to improve the way local produce is marketed in Canada.

The next regulation is to amend the Health of Animals Act to enable the minister to approve a program elaborated by a third party for the purposes of preventing the introduction of any vector, disease or toxic substance or for controlling, eradicating or preventing the spread of vectors, diseases and toxic substances. Similarly, earlier this week in Parliament, we debated the private member's bill of the member for Foothills, which also talked about the Health of Animals Act in the context of biosecurity on farms and the challenges that many agricultural producers are facing with respect to the avian flu and other diseases that are impacting agricultural sectors.

I will note that, in the United States, perhaps because its biosecurity provisions on agricultural properties and its health of animals act were not as robust as the ones we have in Canada, the avian flu led to a massive increase in poultry prices and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of birds meant for consumption. Therefore, I am happy to see this amendment, to ensure that we do the best to protect our farmers and the consumers of their food.

Another amendment in Bill S-6 also touches upon the Health of Animals Act, to enable the minister to make an interim order that may be used when immediate action is required to deal with significant risks to protect animal and human health and the environment. This is a good-sense regulation that speaks to my previous point that we need to give the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the tools it needs when there is another outbreak of avian flu or another disease impacting our agricultural products, like foot-and-mouth disease, which has also impacted production in the Fraser Valley in previous times.

The next amendment in Bill S-6 would make changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act that “would allow the agency to deliver services and businesses to interact with CFIA through electronic means rather than having to rely solely on paper-based transactions. This change would reduce administrative burden for businesses and allow them greater flexibility in their interactions with government.”

Any time any government agency is taking a step forward to digitize its interactions with Canadians, it is a positive step.

A member from Kingston and I had a debate a few months ago about the immigration services MPs provide in our constituency offices. We both agreed that sometimes we take on too much of this work on behalf of public servants. In many cases, the constituents who come to my office and talk about their interactions with Citizenship and Immigration decry the fact that so much of what they need to do is still based on paper forms that are anachronistic.

I am happy the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is making the relevant regulatory changes to allow people to communicate by email in the 21st century. That is a good change.

The next regulation in Bill S-6 I would like to discuss is the proposed amendment to the Safe Foods for Canadians Act to amend the definition of “food commodity” to align it with the definition of food in the Food and Drugs Act, as amended in 2019.

The next change would provide authority to make regulations as a result of Canada entering into a free trade agreement. We would not know the context of this specific regulation until it is enacted and put into practice by the Minister of International Trade upon this bill hopefully receiving royal assent.

There are a number of amendments related to the Canada Transportation Act that would enable new mechanisms to be used to integrate regulatory changes stemming more quickly from updates to international transportation safety standards. This would ensure our transportation sectors meet the most up-to-date safety standards and keep pace with changes in technology and innovation.

Abbotsford is home to Cascade Aerospace. I was able to speak on a concurrence motion to a regulatory change that might be covered in Bill S-6, and that is the fact that when students are taking the test to be an airplane mechanic or to work in the aviation sector, the training manuals still require students, in the 21st century, to go through a module on cloth wings. I do not think there are many planes in Canada made with cloth any longer.

Cascade Aerospace specifically said that the aerospace industry at large has asked for many years that Canada's regulatory process be more in line with the FAA in the United States to stay competitive and allow for companies like Cascade to bid on contracts with American companies to provide the types of manufacturing and high-tech jobs we are looking for in Canada. Hopefully this amendment to the Transportation Act will help us get there.

The next regulation would revise the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to broaden the type of sampling that could be used as the basis for verification or reverification of meters beyond only statistical sampling.

The next one would make changes to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to provide flexibilities to update regulations for miscellaneous technical or administrative changes.

The next regulation would make changes to the Canada Land Surveyors Act to modernize the legislative framework that regulates the Canada land surveyors profession.

On this side of the House, we have been speaking a lot about the designation of skilled workers in Canada. Hopefully, this is a positive change that would allow more immigrants, for example, to work as surveyors in our communities. Like many professions, we are seeing a shortage of workers, especially in skilled fields such as this one. Hopefully, this regulation would encourage more people to become surveyors in Canada and do the necessary work to build our roads and prepare neighbourhoods for development as we look to see more housing construction in Canada.

In fact, I had to hire a surveyor recently in Abbotsford for my own house. I was very pleased with the service they provided, but, due to the shortage of workers I could not believe the bill I had to pay at the end. However, that is a debate for another time.

Let me just conclude by looking over some of the remarks made by Senator Woo, who sponsored this bill on behalf of the government. Senator Woo is one of five senators from the province of B.C. When he sponsored this bill, it almost felt to me that he was a member of the Liberal government. He talked about looking ahead and that the Treasury Board Secretariat would be considering more proposals for another regulatory modernization bill. He talked about his close working relationship with the Treasury Board Secretariat, as if he were a member of the Liberal government and not an independent.

This is particularly challenging for me, because I actually think this bill is really important and would do a lot of things that stakeholders and deputy ministers across the Government of Canada have been asking for, for a long time. That is to clean up the balance sheet, so to speak, so government can function more effectively on behalf of Canadians and provide the services that we collectively need and the regulation that is required to run different sectors of our economy and our consumption of goods and produce. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that it was hard for me to see that it was the government not tabling this directly in the House of Commons but instead it went through the Senate.

British Columbia right now has a population of just over five million. That means every senator we have represents, effectively, one million people. In Ontario, it is not much better. It is at 592,000. On Prince Edward Island, it is 38,000. The government should not be doing its important work through its Liberal senators in the other chamber. It should be doing the important work here in this chamber.

With respect to the Senate, as a British Columbian, I hope one day we will have a more effective voice in the Canadian Confederation. When I go door knocking during elections, almost every day someone raises the fact that Ottawa does not adequately represent the interests of my province. This is largely due to the fact that we only have six senators allotted to us, with five in place right now. We pay equalization payments to other provinces and we have the third-highest population.

In the years ahead, indigenous people are going to take more control of their lives through natural resources development. There are a number of amazing companies that are partnering with indigenous people in the natural resources sector. I am very optimistic about trade and commerce on Canada's west coast in the years ahead. I hope, by the economic growth that we are going to see that is going to drive the Canadian economic growth in the 21st century, and that one day we are going to have a sufficient number of senators or equal representation in Ottawa. British Columbians deserve it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to understand why certain provinces such as P.E.I. have very different representation in the Senate, he should probably pick up the Constitution and have a look at it. Perhaps that will help to inform him on that.

To be honest, the last 30 or 45 seconds of his discussion were probably the most passionate of his entire 20-minute speech. He seemed to speak a lot about how much he is in favour of the bill and rhetorically speak about the need or lack of need for a lot of the regulations.

Conservative after Conservative have indicated their support for this. I wonder if the member can inform the House as to when we might be able to get on with the vote on it. If he could do that and at the same time spare me the rhetoric of needing every Conservative to represent their constituents and speak to this specific bill, that would be great too.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member opposite's good-faith question, the reality is that it is the Liberal House leader who will ultimately make the decision when each of the bills before Parliament is brought to a vote. It is a negotiation with the Liberals' coalition partners, the NDP, and the official opposition, the Conservatives.

I spoke in good faith to Bill S-6. Many of the regulations related to the Health of Animals Act on biosecurity, I think, are really relevant. It is a good bill, but ultimately, in terms of its passage and when we come to a vote on it will be determined by whether or not the Liberal House leader is willing to work with the official opposition to make sure that bills are properly scrutinized and debated accordingly.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I still find it rather ironic to hear my colleague say that he is prepared to move to a vote on the bill when he feels so inclined, while also making a rather convincing plea for public servants to be more efficient when it comes to bureaucracy. There is a bit of a contradiction there.

How does my colleague feel about that? Does he not think we could move on to the next item on the agenda and move forward to set an example for our government with regard to improving bureaucracy?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is right, we need to streamline regulations where necessary and strengthen regulations to protect our food here in Canada. We have a lot of work to do.

Sometimes we need to streamline regulations. Other times, we need to strengthen them to meet demands and bring our economy into the 21st century.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise just to give recognition to the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. He seems to have a certain je ne sais quoi, a certain flair that the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière seems to have. I have appreciated that in his delivery of petitions.

It seems to me, based on his speech, that he has a newfound passion for an elected Senate, one that has mixed member proportional representation, one that allows for true democracy to happen. I would love to hear the member talk about ways in which we can make the Senate more accountable, beyond the patronage appointments of the past Conservative and Liberal governments.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me just say equal, elected and effective.

The first action I ever took as a Canadian in a democratic process was to put a wonderful reform party of Canada sign on my dad's front lawn. From that day on I learned about how the Senate has under-represented my province since its inception into Confederation and that one day, through economic reconciliation with first nations, we might see British Columbia gain its proper place in this federation. However, we cannot do it without working with indigenous Canadians so they can take control of their lives. Get the Indian Act out of the way. Let them flourish through resource development and partnering with businesses to create a new life and new opportunity for young people, especially young indigenous peoples across our great country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we are all astonished by the turn this debate has taken on modernizing regulations.

I just wanted to express to the member some degree of sympathy that the electoral boundary redistribution will deprive him of representing the town of Ashcroft and the extraordinarily vital and engaged citizenry. As well, I think he is losing Lytton, which we already lost in action. It has not moved. I am not being facetious about losing Lytton. We shall never lose Lytton. It must be rebuilt.

Does the hon. member think it is inevitable that his boundaries are redrawn in that fashion?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the good-faith question. On the redistribution process, the member knows that Fraser Canyon and all of those communities have a special place in my heart, as they do for her.

I think Ashcroft is like the Sedona of Canada. It has such a bright future. There are so many amazing things going on there. It is one of the few ecological zones in Canada that are actually a desert. It is beautiful and I encourage everyone to visit the village of Ashcroft.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Cache Creek. There is flooding going on in Cache Creek, which has increased every year since the 2017 Elephant Hill fire. In fact, since that time, we have lost the fire chief to a previous flood. It just goes to show how much work we have to do on climate mitigation and adaptation for small communities like Cache Creek in order to give them a future, so they are not subject to these annual floods, which tear apart businesses and people's homes.

My staff will continue working hard to support Lytton. We have made progress. We are working in good faith with all parties. Building permits can be issued now, but we have so much more to get done.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, seeing that my hon. colleague is so enthusiastic, I would like to ask him if he is ready to entertain the idea of separatists being appointed to a reformed Senate. I am not saying that we would go there.

I am curious if he would be ready to entertain even that idea. It does represent the opinion of a significant number of Quebeckers.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, every Canadian, even Quebeckers who do not believe in Canada, has the right to vote according to their conscience, and to even vote for an elected Senate.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the turn this has taken. I am learning so much about the hon. member. In his passionate remarks, he used a phrase that Conservatives like to use, which, quite frankly, is made up. It is this idea of “economic reconciliation”. If the member wants to have true reconciliation, I would love for him to put on the record the ways in which his government, if elected, would remove the red tape in its entirety by just giving land back. That would be true reconciliation with first nations on all the legal fictions that were made under the treaties.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague forgot to point out that we need to abolish the Indian Act. I also said that in my debate tonight. We have so much work to do.

It is not me stating that they want economic reconciliation. It is the Stó:lo Nation pushing to have more control over forestry tenure so that it can take control of its own resources.

That is why I am pleased to outline again that the Conservative Party is taking an indigenous-led process to develop a new way to reconceive how we develop natural resources in Canada. Many of the first nations constituents I represent, like those in Lytton, benefit a lot from some of the economic development already taking place and receive large sums of money. One member was telling me that the Lytton tribal council receives over $1 million a year in remittances. It entered that agreement in good faith with Teck Resources.

We have so much to do, but ultimately, we are not going to get there until, as the member pointed out, the indigenous people of Canada have more control over their lands.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that many of us are not used to being here this late in the evening, but maybe we are not really here and this is all a dream, because I have difficulty believing that the government is actually doing something about this mountain of red tape that Canadians face. While it is true that Bill S-6 would not do much, at least we are doing something.

Before the people of Edmonton Manning asked me to represent them here, I was a business owner. For over 20 years, I worked to build a company that had not only domestic but international sales. I have first-hand experience in how the excessive regulations and red tape this government imposes on business hurt Canadian companies and prevent them from being competitive—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask the hon. members who want to have conversations to please go to the lobbies.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the second interruption from the other side for some reason.

I am splitting my time today with the member for Mirabel.

It is good to see a bill that reduces the administrative burden government places on business, facilitates digital interactions with government and simplifies regulatory processes. All our legislation should be aimed at making government smaller and simpler, in order to serve the Canadian people rather than handicap them. This is a new idea from the Liberals, one I hope they stick with.

I am encouraged to discover that this bill makes exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products without sacrificing safety. It will also make cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across governments. If we ask those in business, they will tell us that all too often the rules applied by one government department are not consistent with those applied by another department.

It was also encouraging to hear that the measures proposed in Bill S-6 are the result of a public consultation process by the Treasury Board Secretariat, as well as asking federal departments what changes are required to further streamline the regulatory process. Consultation makes sense and I would encourage the government to try it in other areas as well.

I would also encourage the Liberals to speed up the process for eliminating unnecessary government red tape. The regulatory modernization bill, the RMB, is supposed to be instituted annually to optimize regulatory processes between government departments. By doing this every year, the hope is the bureaucratic hill of red tape will not be allowed to grow into a mountain.

If we look at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's website, we will in fact see that the legislation is referred to as an annual regulatory modernization bill. Admittedly, English is not my first language, but I was led to understand that “annual” describes something that happens every year. This is the second RMB the current government has offered us. The first was only four years ago. This one was introduced last year, but obviously has not been a priority for the Liberals. Simple math says that they need to introduce four more RMBs this year to bring us up to date, but as we have seen with the budget and the government's financial plan, simple math is not their strong suit.

The 2019 RMB made changes to 12 pieces of legislation in the areas of transportation, pest control, electricity and gas inspections.

For example, the Canada Transportation Act and the Food and Drugs Act were amended to allow for innovation, permitting limited exemptions from regulatory requirements for regulatory sandboxes to test the new products that would benefit Canadians, such as tissues developed through 3D printing.

The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act was amended to support the use of new technologies, including zero-emission vehicles, light-emitting diodes, LEDs, and hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.

The Canada Transportation Act was amended to allow for digital and electronic processes and documents in addition to in-person or paper-based ones.

Changes to the Pest Control Products Act removed a redundant review requirement when another review was already considering the issue or could be modified to include the issue.

Amendments to the Food and Drugs Act provided more clarity to industry about which regulations apply to their products.

Now we have Bill S-6, which proposes 46 minor changes to 29 acts that are administered by the following 12 government organizations: Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Canada Border Services Agency; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada; Health Canada; Transport Canada; and Parks Canada.

It is good to see that the bill has a larger scope than the previous RMB and that the Liberals are discovering more places where the government needs to get out of the way. It is the least they can do.

Ask any business person and they will tell us that Canada has a red tape and productivity crisis, which is why, to me, this bill is both encouraging and disappointing.

It is encouraging because at least the Liberals are beginning to understand that there is a problem. It is disappointing because there is so much more that needs to be done; an annual bill that is, in reality, brought to the House once every three or four years is not enough to solve the problem.

The items addressed in this bill are minor at best and do little to address the onerous red tape regime that is slowing economic growth in Canada. It is the barest of the bare minimums the Liberals could make in reducing red tape and bureaucratic overreach.

It does nothing to substantively address the bureaucracy and red tape stifling economic growth. It is a Liberal bill heavy on announcement and light on delivery.

Certainly, no one would object to the changes proposed, which includes amending the Health of Animals Act to enable the minister to make an interim order that may be used when immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, to protect animal health, human health and the environment. This is just basic common sense.

It includes making changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, which would allow the agency to deliver services and allow businesses to interact with CFIA through electronic means rather than having to rely solely on paper-based transactions. This change would reduce administrative burdens for businesses and allow them greater flexibility in their interactions with the government. Paper-based transactions are usually slower than electronic ones. This is also a matter of common sense.

It includes making changes to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, to enable information sharing to help administer any federal or provincial law for permanent and temporary residents.

This bill has three main purposes: first, to make doing business easier, especially when government is involved; second, to provide flexibility and agility in government regulatory systems; and, third, to improve the integrity of the regulatory system. It is good to start but it is only a start. As the mountain of red tape grows, we need to do better. Given the track record of the Liberal government, though, maybe I am dreaming.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a bill on modernization and regulations, I feel compelled to pay tribute to a woman from my region, Jocelyne Trudel, who has to retire from her job at the Caisse Desjardins because her term is up, in line with regulations.

I want to pay tribute to her because, first of all, I was a member of the board of directors of the credit union. I had to resign when I was elected. This woman did everything very thoroughly and rigorously. She is a very generous woman. I really wanted to pay tribute to her today.

I have a question for my colleague. How can we help our administrators simplify all the paperwork for our businesses? Is there any way to do this?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a business case, basically. When one does business, one structures it properly and one puts the proper steps that are streamlined by nature. One does not put the processes that start adding red tape over and over to thicken the bureaucratic process so that business cannot be done. That is one way of doing this. It has to start in the roots and it has to be a culture of any government running this country.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague did, sort of, reference his life before entering the House of Commons. We are so fortunate to have him here. He has a very strong background in business.

As the government goes on to do the third iteration of Bill S-6, from a completely business perspective, and as we did see in The Globe and Mail today that this is a time when fewer Canadians than ever are considering starting a small business, what are some considerations for business or even small business?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know so many friends who are trying to start a business or are already in business, and the amount of red tape that they are facing is incredible.

It is so risky nowadays to think about starting a business. Those regulations start with the government. The government has to understand the common sense of doing business for businesses to be competitive, for their ability to survive in the long term, and to be productive enough so that they can continue to do business and be encouraged to do so.

The current environment of doing business in this country is not encouraging whatsoever. The government needs to act very quickly.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, considering the title of this bill is an act respecting regulatory modernization, in this time of reconciliation, a lot of legislation is quite outdated when it comes to indigenous peoples. A lot of regulations are quite outdated when it comes to indigenous peoples.

Specifically I would like to ask about the Species at Risk Act, because it does point to some species that impact my riding as I talked about to another member of Parliament, regarding barren-ground caribou, the Atlantic walrus and the Atlantic cod. I think the Species at Risk Act would make significant improvements about how these species at risk would be dealt with.

Does the member agree that, in terms of modernizing regulations, modernization must include regulations to ensure that indigenous engagement always happens when it is going to impact indigenous well-being?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the indigenous community, as well as other communities in Canada, and business communities are the victims of red tape and regulations.

The red tape and the bureaucratic processes are so thick that they are basically stopping oxygen from getting into the body. That is how I describe it.

We need to open up. We need to realize that we cannot continue doing what we are doing, because the longer this takes, the more risk we have of killing the body. I hope that is not going to be case, but we need to do better and we need to do it faster.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is 10:20 p.m. on a Wednesday night. I know that members have been looking forward to the highlight of the evening, obviously my speech. I just want to take a moment to recognize the hard-working employees of the House who are with us this evening. I want to thank the pages in particular. We often forget about them, but they are here for us and they work with us. They are our work colleagues. I saw some of them studying earlier. I even tried to help one of them solve integrals, but without success. I will have to review my math. In short, I want to thank them. I want them to know that we know that they work hard and that we think highly of them.

Let us look at the bill for what it is. In the description I have here, it talks about minor regulatory amendments to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes” and so on. Let us be honest. This is a routine bill. Once in a while, the government adjusts the regulations and updates laws and standards. We should not be debating this for six hours, which is what we are doing until midnight tonight. This is a waste of time. It does not make any sense. It is the very embodiment of parliamentary inefficiency. This bill has no principle or even spirit. These are regulatory changes. The bill should be sent directly to committee for study. It amends a whole pile of legislation. That requires expertise. I think it is a shameful waste of the House's resources and members' time to be messing around with this bill until midnight.

Still, it contains some important and interesting elements. It is true that it will make life easier for businesses and that it will simplify many things. There is a little bit of everything and a whole lot of nothing in there. There are bits about electricity, gas, the use of new technologies. We want to encourage international harmonization of standards. I know everyone is passionate about that; I can see it in their faces. People are as passionate as I am about this. We are talking about gas standards, weights and measures. We are talking about allowing more flexibility for new technologies, another one of my biggest passions. We are also going to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that there is no more confusion between the annual report and the annual declaration, so that some companies do not get delisted without their knowledge, as Jean Perron said.

There are a bunch of changes like that. Some are more substantial. The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act is being amended, for example. Essentially, when there are changes to standards and regulations, that needs to be published in the Canada Gazette. Members, parliamentarians, the public and experts in the field need to be keep abreast through the Canada Gazette. What we are doing here is repealing section 15 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, which requires these publications.

We understand the spirit of the bill because the Standards Council of Canada conducted an analysis of 19 Natural Resources Canada regulations. It became apparent that there were artefacts and old stock, that 167 of the 367 standards were removed, replaced, were no longer managed or no longer served any purpose.

What we are saying here is that we are going to facilitate the process of regulatory changes. There are essentially a few little problems because in the bill as written, there is no distinction between minor, cosmetic, functional changes and changes that might be more substantial. Regulations and standards in the oil sector are important, as members know.

There are a bunch of standards like that. I referred to them earlier when I was asking questions of some of my colleagues, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. This serves to remind us that the government has legislative tools available to adjust regulations or minor pieces of legislation that are ill-suited, contain errors or have aged poorly, and that it can do so routinely, as we are doing today.

I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Not many people know a lot about that committee, but essentially, we assess problems that may exist in regulations.

There are legal advisers who tell us, for example, that the French version does not say the same thing as the English version, or that there is an issue because the interpretation of certain regulations may be ambiguous for the courts and could cause problems. There have even been cases where there were potential charter violations. The way the regulations were written could have caused major concerns.

This week, this committee issued a notice of disallowance for an order. The problem went back 25 years. It is not uncommon for us to write to ministers one, two, three, four or five times and not get a response or a visit. Some of our correspondence is as old as Methuselah. We go back and forth with the department but do not get any answers. I would urge the government to think about that and think about the importance of correcting these errors in current laws.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé was saying that this legislation had been written five years ago and was only now being debated. There have been issues in some laws for a long time. They never get resolved, and we are being kept waiting. I am appealing to the sensitivity of the government members.

Beyond that, if we want to simplify matters, if we want to make things better for businesses, the business community and taxpayers, there are solutions that we could debate. One of them is Quebec's independence.

I know how much everybody loves filing two tax returns. We spoke about that earlier. However, do we really want two finance departments? That results in two tax rates, two finance ministers, two finance departments, two sets of public servants who draw up budgets and study estimates. That is inefficient. It might be worthwhile eliminating one of them.

We have two revenue agencies, one in Ottawa and one in Quebec City. We could fix that. In addition, if we had a single tax return, we could reassign the CRA employees working in Quebec offices to other tasks for which they are qualified, without cutting any jobs. This would result in greater productivity and savings for our businesses. That would be a good thing.

It would also be a good thing if we no longer had two environment ministers with two sets of standards. That would be pretty good. It would be a good thing if we did not have two governments bickering over who will have first crack at the tax base, who will be the first to claim a GST point or a QST point. We could eliminate all these inefficiencies.

I can guess what my colleagues are thinking. I know that the two health ministers are on their minds. The first minister manages hospitals and provides services. The second imposes conditions. The first is not sure whether they want the transfer because they are wondering whether it costs more to submit all the reports in order to meet the conditions. It is almost not worth taking the money.

That is not even to mention the fact that the tax rules for the capital allowance are inconsistent between Quebec and Ottawa, which causes confusion for businesses and takes up more resources. There is also the matter of diplomacy, international relations, and Canadian embassies and Quebec offices around the world. How inefficient is that?

It is no less inefficient than having two departments of transport or duplicating environmental assessments because Ottawa insists on having its own, thereby violating Quebec's environmental sovereignty. Quebec is also being told what to do in the area of infrastructure because Ottawa wants to impose standards.

It has even gotten to the point where the Conservatives want housing standards. There is also duplication of work and conditions imposed for post-secondary education. The federal government is even interfering in the hiring of university professors and research chairs.

I am not talking about immigration mix-ups. Why not hand that over to Quebec City? Why not do the same with housing, the French language and labour law? There is a federal labour law and a provincial labour law, two innovation departments, two natural resources departments, two departments that deal with climate change. Here, there is heritage, which is supposed to take care of the French language, yet does not care what Quebec's department of culture wants.

When things are light, life is good. Everyone likes that. Therefore, in order to make things lighter, we should leave Canada. We should leave. I am certain the other nine provinces can have a lot of fun without us.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, that is not true. I would miss Quebec if it were to leave Canada, as the member spoke about towards the end of his speech. I would even suggest that a good portion of Quebeckers, if not a majority, would feel the same way.

At the beginning of the member's intervention, he spoke about whether there is even a need for having this discussion right now, and I could not agree more. We are literally talking about something right now that everybody is in agreement with. It has primarily just been Conservatives getting up to speak to this. I am baffled as to why that is when everybody is in agreement, notwithstanding the fact that I know people stand up and use the excuse of making sure they represent their constituents by talking about it.

Can the member try to shed some light on why we are not moving along? All it takes is for everybody to stop talking; then, by default, we would just go to a vote. Could he give his thoughts on why we are not able to do that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not privy to the conversations and dealings that led to this situation. I will repeat what I said earlier. This is nonsense. When a bill is given second reading, we accept the principle and decide whether to refer it to committee for study, because we agree with the spirit of the bill, because it is a great idea.

We are talking about small regulatory changes that affect a lot of statutes and that require a very technical evaluation. It is by definition committee work. Those who think it is a good idea to debate this for hours, until midnight, have not been following the debates. The quality of the content of the speeches is proof that the House of Commons is not the place to go into great detail. This is committee work.

I am disappointed, because there is plenty of work to be done. We have plenty of legislation to study. There is no shortage of debates to be had. We are missing out on good opportunities to work intelligently.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention, and I want to compliment him on both the rapidity and the simplicity of his speech. Because I do not understand the French language well enough, I also want to compliment our interpreter services for providing a very simple way for me to understand.

I actually have a two-part question for the member. First of all, given the plainness he used so that I was able to understand, I would expect the member would be able to support our Conservative initiatives, when we form government, for plain-language laws, which would reduce a lot of bureaucratic language.

Second, I was a bit confused by the member's constant points about removing duplicity in terms of having two departments looking at different things. Would he then want 10 departments or 13 departments looking after the various aspects of provincial law, or would it be better to have just one federal aspect?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope the interpretation services are paying attention because I will say this slowly.

What I would do is take Quebec, leave Canada and there would no longer be a federal government. We would get rid of half the departments and we would be none the worse for it.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mirabel for his speech, and from it, I take the irony of us talking about efficiencies in a bill that is about efficiencies.

I am interested in the comments around reduction and duplicity, but I wonder if there are some other in-house efficiencies that the member could share. I sometimes think about whether we could have shorter speeches to get more business done in the House. Does he have other ideas on how we can be more efficient in the House?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not necessarily that the parliamentary rules are poorly written. I certainly do not think that we should be muzzling members, shortening their speeches. I think that here in the House there are 338 intelligent people who are capable of mastering their content, who are willing to work for their constituents. If I did not have the highest regard for each and every member of the House, I would not be so upset about the use of our precious resource, our time.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this evening, as well as the various people who are watching at home. I know my kids are watching. They wanted to watch the hockey game, but I told them no, as it was important for them to be watching their dad on CPAC instead. Given the score, though, they will be glad of the choice that has been made for them.

I want to assure members I will not be splitting my time, by the way.

The bill we are debating tonight is Bill S-6. This is a bill dealing with the issue of regulatory modernization. I have to say we have heard some complaints from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who does a lot of speaking and does a lot of complaining about other people speaking in this place. He has been asking why people are interested in speaking to this bill. Why are people interested in speaking on behalf of their constituents about the important policy issues that are raised by this bill?

It is clear in the substantive, important speeches that have been given by various members that there is a lot to say. To distill the essence of why this debate is important is that, on so many fronts, there is the government's failure to take seriously the need to modernize regulations; consider the competitiveness of our economy; and consider, broadly speaking, the environment in which businesses operate. The failure of the government to understand what is important for our businesses to succeed is at the heart of so many challenges facing this country.

It is important to remind people of something that I think Conservatives understand. That is that we want to have strong social programs and those strong social programs must be built on a foundation of economic prosperity. If we ignore the economic prosperity side of the equation and then talk about how we want to be giving more money to people, that is not going to add up at a certain point. That is why we need to have a strong economy driven by a strong private sector that is able to create jobs and deliver opportunity.

A strong economy provides the platform on which we can then do more for each other and more for the most vulnerable. It has to be on that foundation of prosperity. It is something that the government and the parties of the left in general, I think, very much fail to understand. We need to have a strong economy built on a strong private sector, and that requires the kind of regulatory modernization we are talking about.

We have had various bills over the last number of weeks that have dealt, broadly speaking, with questions of the economy. We have had regulatory modernization proposals, and we have this bill, Bill S-6. We also had the budget implementation act. I have to say that, in the midst of all of it, and I would never refer to the presence or absence of members in this place, but let us just say that, in terms of the statements that are on the record, the questions that are answered, we have heard very little from the finance minister.

We now have a discussion going on at the finance committee about the budget implementation act and there is a simple ask from Conservative. On issues around the state of our regulations, the state of our economy and what is in the budget, it is a reasonable ask to say that Canada's finance minister should come to speak to the budget for, let us say, at least two hours. Not only has the finance minister not answered questions in the House very frequently for quite some time, but also the government is not willing to agree to a simple amendment to the programming motion from Conservatives saying that the finance minister should come for two hours to answer questions on the budget implementation act because the finance minister is the person setting the economic agenda in this country. I know that Bill Morneau, the previous finance minister, has said since leaving office that most of the decisions about the economic direction of the country are made in the Prime Minister's office, but if we believe that it is the finance minister who is setting the tone, surely we should expect that the finance minister would be available to answer questions on these important topics.

As it relates to the strength of our economy, and as it relates to regulatory modernization, I think there are many questions to be answered. Here is what I see in the approach of the government. The approach of the government is kind of a retread of this old left-wing, government-knows-best idea of the economy, but it expresses itself now in a very different way.

At one time, parties of the left were more explicit in calling for draconian state regulations, state control, picking winners and losers, interfering in the economy, and controlling the means of production, as at least perhaps one member is still willing to say. That is the kind of explicit interventionist language we used to hear from parties of the left in this place and elsewhere.

Now the government is taking a new approach to the justification of its agenda, but it is still a retread of the same basic philosophical idea, which is that, fundamentally, the government knows best which sectors are going to succeed in the future, where new technologies are going to come from and which sectors are no longer required. Therefore, its budget has this policy of significant subsidies toward certain sectors, piling regulatory burdens on other sectors and saying which kinds of things are going to be the sectors, the companies and the investments of the future, while these other things are just not.

The government is still trying to make these decisions, but it is trying to implement these decisions with a greater level of subtlety. It is the long arm of the state trying to mask itself in velvet gloves, but the interventionism inherent in the government's industrial policy is still very evident.

The government's efforts to undertake regulatory reform are actually very selective. It would like to talk about regulatory reform but be selective in its implementation of it for selective subsidies and tax advantages to certain kinds of companies, certain companies in certain regions, and leave in place a significant regulatory burden in other areas.

Conservatives will support Bill S-6 because it is better than nothing, but we also see it as lacking in ambition. It is lacking in ambition for truly making this the kind of country where, as I think we used to be, we are a great magnet for investment, not just in particular sectors where the government is trying to subsidize what it thinks the winners of the future will be, but to be the kind of country where anybody with a good and profitable idea can come here to invest, and those regulatory burdens would be removed.

By the way, one area where we really need regulatory reform is in the area of getting critical natural resource projects, especially in the oil and gas sector, approved. The need for this was put in sharp focus by the horrific genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In the context of this invasion, it became clear what a mistake it had been for various European countries to become so dependent on gas imports from Russia. The need for a rapid transition away from that dependency became very clear. There was an opportunity for Canada to say we have a unique vocation in the democratic world and that is to supply the world with secure and stable access to energy.

At the time, Conservatives were saying that. If we look at the democratic world, most of the world's democracies are geographically small, densely populated nations. In Europe, but also in east Asia, there are many democracies that look like that, geographically small and densely populated.

Canada is relatively unique in the democratic world as being a geographically vast, sparsely populated nation that is very rich in natural resources. We could be that critical source of energy security for our friends, allies and partners throughout the democratic world so they do not need to be reliant on hostile powers that do not share our values and do not have the same security interests.

I would like to see Canada step up to fill that vital need. To do that, we will need to modernize, update and improve our regulations when it comes to getting projects approved. It is clear Liberals do not want us to fulfill that role. They talk a good talk sometimes about supporting Ukraine, but they do not see this vital strategic opportunity for Canada stepping up to fill this gap and be a supplier of the energy security our allies need.

The gas association was saying, right away, that we need to improve the regulatory environment to make it easier for projects to move forward. I think there were mixed messages sent on that, from various members of the Liberal cabinet, but no action on it. The Prime Minister said that there was no business case for these projects. Then European countries have gone and signed deals, and found sources of energy elsewhere.

Canada still has such immense potential. Why would we not seize that opportunity to now expand the development of oil and gas, creating wealth here in Canada, and supplying our allies and partners with energy security?

I know some members would say that the regulatory burdens that are imposed on energy companies are in service of the environment. However, if we look globally, if we look at the alternatives, we could see that that is not at all the case. In fact, in so many cases, in particular, gas exports from Canada, it could displace not only the conflict energy sources and save lives by reducing European dependence on Russia, but also the less environmentally friendly sources of energy. Some countries in Europe made the mistake of being reliant on Russian gas. Other countries in Europe are still using coal, because their response to the threat posed by the Putin regime has been to say that they do not want to be reliant on Russian gas so they will take whatever alternatives they have available to them, which may mean coal.

Canadian energy exports, the fact that we are a free democracy exporting energy and that we could displace coal with Canadian gas, could be good for global security and good for the environment. However, that requires regulatory modernization. That requires a willingness to go much further than Bill S-6 has done, to have a greater level of ambition, in terms of what we could be as a country and what we could accomplish. That would require us to broaden the range of the kind of regulatory changes that we are prepared to make. I think this would be the right approach, and it is the one that Conservatives have been championing.

In general, I will say, in terms of the gaps and the need for regulatory modernization, we have bureaucracy out of control in this country. We have a government that has massively expanded the public service, but at the same time has dramatically increased its spending on outside consultants. Go figure that one out. The government is spending more on the public service and substantially more on contracting out. One would expect that if it is spending more on the public service, it would contract out less, or if there was a smaller public service then it would contract out more. Aside from the sort of underlying arguments about contracting out or not, one would expect those things to be somewhat inversely proportional.

However, the Liberal government is spending more on bureaucracy, is spending more on contracting out and, in the midst of all this, is not actually able to achieve any kind of labour peace. We have this strike, right in the midst of the time when Canadians are filing their taxes, so they cannot get answers. Talking about the regulatory burden, the red tape people face, it is hard enough trying to figure out how to file taxes, and then when we do not have the people there who are supposed to be available to answer questions, it underlines the impression that so many Canadians have, that everything is broken, that the government just is not working.

Again, Bill S-6 does a little but it does not solve the fundamental problem. What is the alternative? What could we propose as an alternative in terms of regulatory modernization?

We have seen that the previous Conservative government, and other Conservative parties around the world, have taken the one-for-one approach, that if a new regulation is brought in, an old regulation has to be repealed. That recognizes the fact that there are likely plenty of regulations out there that are outdated, that no longer apply. It creates an impetus for government to always be looking to repeal old regulations that are no longer necessary, if a particular minister or department wants to bring in a new regulation.

This approach has been used successfully in the past and has created an impetus for government to go further when it comes to removing gatekeepers, streamlining processes and making this the kind of country where it is easy to invest and create jobs and opportunity.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That was the best part of his speech.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands enjoyed the pause, so I will take another drink and let him reflect on the things being said.

I would never suggest there are very few Liberals here in the House to hear my speech, but I know many will be watching at home and some might be online as well.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I think your kids are asleep.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member suggests my kids might be asleep. If my kids have trouble sleeping, we usually find clips of the member for Kingston and the Islands and play them. It is true. Actually, that is the punishment. When the kids are misbehaving, we tell them, “If you don't stop fighting, you have to watch Mark Gerretsen's speech.”

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, pardon me. I apologize and withdraw that. What I meant to say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is late in the day, but we do have to be cautious in how we use our words, starting with the names of fellow members.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I meant to say that when my kids misbehave, I play speeches from the member for Kingston and the Islands as a punishment. I did not mean to say his name in this place.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It sounds like a reward to me.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we will see about that.

I want to return to one issue that has been in the news lately and is in another area where I would challenge the government to do more when it comes to modernizing processes. This is about how our institutions respond to the issue of foreign state-backed interference. Many Canadians are deeply concerned about foreign state-backed interference, as they should be.

We are dealing with an instance here in the House where, as we found out, a member of the House of Commons had his family threatened by a foreign government, and those threats involved the actions of an accredited diplomat here in Canada. That diplomat continues to be an accredited diplomat, and the government has not dealt with this. The government did not, for a number of years, inform the member about these threats to his family.

These are issues we are raising in question period and elsewhere. The Conservatives have been calling on the government to take action to expel diplomats involved in foreign interference in Canada, and to respond to a broad range of challenges associated with foreign interference, including to have a foreign agent registry and other such actions.

When it comes to government structures and processes, one of the challenges we see is that various institutions are charged with keeping Canadians safe in various ways. It is not always clear for Canadian victims of foreign interference, or for institutions that feel they face these kinds of threats, where to engage or how to get support. What I have heard in conversations with those who have been victims of this kind of foreign state-backed interference is that very often they feel they get the runaround. They might go to the RCMP, they might go to the local police, they might go to CSIS or they might go to Foreign Affairs, and then they might be directed between different institutions.

What we now have is a proposal from the government to create an office for foreign interference, or an office against foreign interference. In effect, the proposal from the government is to say it is going to put aside a few million dollars and create another office, which is ostensibly another institution dealing with a problem that has not been dealt with.

I do not really blame these other institutions. The problem has often been political will. I suspect that in many cases, things have been brought to the attention of the government and the government has not been willing to take the appropriate action. That has led to a great deal of frustration on the part of some of these institutions. Clearly, we see a lot of frustration on the part of CSIS.

On this point, the government needs to take a serious look not only at its own failures, but also at how to strengthen our institutions and strengthen our structures in terms of how we respond to these issues of foreign interference. It should make the kind of substantial legislative and other changes that are required to move us forward.

Overall, Bill S-6 is better than nothing. I will be voting for it, but needless to say, the country is still piled in red tape, there are still far too many gatekeepers and there is still much more work required.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, even though I am diametrically opposed to the vision he is proposing.

It was a classic demonstration of neo-liberalism, which demonizes the state, regulations, public services, social programs, the social safety net and environmental protections and portrays them as barriers. It was reminiscent of old Regan- and Thatcher-era speeches. It is all about survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle. If we let the free market reign, all will be well, ladies and gentlemen. There is no reason to be concerned, capitalism will take care of everything.

I would like to put a question to my colleague, who has some pretty serious delusions about the lack of regulations and protection for the poorest and our environment, for example.

He said that his party does not want to increase taxes, but wants to cut them. If it will not seek additional money from big companies and billionaires, that means that public services will be cut. That means years of austerity and years of misery for people who are already suffering.

My question is simple: If he does not go looking for more revenue and he cuts public services, what services will he take away from the public?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the hon. member has completely mis-characterized my view.

If he would indulge me for a moment, there is an important distinction between neo-liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives do not believe that capitalism is the solution to every problem. We believe there are many social problems that require other kinds of solutions, and that strong families, strong communities and resilient, virtuous individuals are much more important to the health and well-being of a society than the nature of its economic system. However, we do believe that capitalism has a much better record than the alternatives, including the alternatives the member champions, at creating wealth. Wealth provides us with some of the tools for solving other kinds of problems. If a society has more wealth, it can use that wealth to uplift the conditions of people, including the most vulnerable, in various ways and indeed to invest in social programs, but we cannot have strong, well-funded social programs if we do not have economic prosperity.

That is why we have made the case that if we have a strong energy sector developing and using Canada's natural resources to create jobs, opportunity and wealth, we have more wealth available. Then we have a bigger pie to support the most vulnerable and ensure we have the resources to solve other problems. That does not even guarantee that those other problems get solved, but it means we have the resources to try to solve them. If we are trying to solve problems of poverty, mental health and other social challenges in a society lacking in prosperity, we have less money to invest in those things.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too will be supporting this bill, but as my colleague articulated, it does not go far enough. Where will the next government, our government, go to ensure we have more economic prosperity and have the resources for more social programming?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, some of the memorable phrases from the Conservative leader would say it very well. We are interested in removing gatekeepers. We are interested in smaller government and bigger citizens. We are not talking about an individual's size. We are talking about citizens who are resilient and able to work within communities, within families and within local government structures to solve problems through their own genius and creativity. The Conservatives believe that in every individual is inherent dignity, responsibility and creativity, and that a government that gets out of the way and unleashes individual creativity is not only good for the economy but part of how we solve the social challenges we face. We must not only remove barriers for businesses but also remove barriers that prevent not-for-profits from moving forward.

We talk a lot about removing red tape for business. I think we need to talk more about removing red tape for not-for-profit organizations. The member, who comes from an international development background, will know about some of the red tape that not-for-profit organizations face. We spent some time championing the need to reform direction and control regulations, for example. There are many areas where gatekeepers are not only impeding private sector for-profit development, but are also impeding good work that could be done by not-for-profit organizations.

This is the vision the Conservatives are bringing forward. It emphasizes freedom and removing gatekeepers not simply because freedom is important in and of itself, but because removing the barriers the state puts in the way of individuals' or not-for-profit organizations' freedom is what unleashes creativity and allows us to solve problems together.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want the member to further explain the idea of governments first taking either our rights or materials and then giving them back. This means the government never actually creates anything or gives anything to the citizens that it has not taken before. I want to get his thoughts on the concerns I have on that topic.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great point from my colleague.

With the way government members talk about government spending, we would think it was their own money. They say they are going to give people this for dental care and give people this for groceries. There is no appreciation that this money comes from the people we are giving it back to.

In every case that the government promises new spending, it should provide an explanation of where that money is coming from. It does create money out of thin air, I suppose, but the problem with that is it causes inflation, so somebody is paying for it regardless. The inflation tax is another way of taxing Canadians, but it still has the same effect of a tax.

This is not to say that there is no place for government spending. There is absolutely a place for taxation and government spending. However, every time the government spends money, there is a corresponding cost and the cost is borne by Canadians. The government should acknowledge that when it is going out and defending its proposals.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I found the exchange a couple minutes ago very interesting. A Conservative asked his colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, about the bill, and he said he would eliminate red tape in order to create more wealth, which would then apparently be used to lift people out of poverty. I found that exchange to be very interesting. It reminds me a lot of the whole theory behind Reaganomics: Let the wealthy get even more wealthy; then the poor will do better as well. We all know how that experiment panned out.

Can he refer back to one Conservative government in the history of this country that was successful at reducing the poverty rate in Canada?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start with the example I know best, which is the previous Conservative government. The previous Conservative government brought in targeted tax relief for the lowest-income taxpayers. We lowered the GST, which was a regressive tax. We brought in universal child care supports, which went directly to parents, that emphasized choice in child care. Imagine letting parents decide how they raise their own children and providing them with the support to do so. We raised the base personal exemption, which took a million Canadians off the tax roll. We also lowered the lowest marginal tax rate.

In fact, if we look at all of the taxes we cut, all of the tax cuts were targeting the lowest-income earners with income tax cuts. We also cut business taxes, which stimulated more economic activity and helped to create jobs.

The line we hear from the Liberals sometimes is that the Conservatives are trying to help those at the top. However, if we look at the tax cuts we brought in, we raised the base personal exemption, we lowered the lowest marginal tax rate and we cut the GST. All of these major tax cut changes were giving tax relief to Canadians at the lowest end. They created jobs and opportunity.

Despite bringing Canada through the global financial crisis, we reduced the debt-to-GDP ratio for the country overall. We left the country in a strong position with a balanced budget. The government has added more debt than all of the previous prime ministers combined, making previous Liberal governments look relatively conservative by comparison.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North.

With a Liberal government that, by all accounts, thrives on weaving red tape and thick layers of regulations into almost every government process, there is a certain irony in that it is now putting forward a bill that outlines measures, and I will quote from Bill S-6's preamble, that “repeal or amend provisions that have, over time, become barriers to innovation and economic growth [and] to add certain provisions with a view to support innovation and economic growth”. The great irony here is the bill's stated goal of supporting innovation and economic growth, which would certainly be better achieved by replacing this worn-out Liberal government with a new Conservative government. Such a government would have respect for the economic fundamentals that create wealth and jobs in this country and would properly balance regulations with the need to ensure that we have an innovative free market.

Perhaps this bill is an effort by the Liberals to try to burnish their credentials on this front. Those members over there know that their party lacks any credibility on this issue. Remember, it was just this year that, in its red-tape report card, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave the Liberals the worst-ever federal government grade for their inaction on reducing red tape.

I can guarantee that every member on that side has heard the outcry from constituents and from business leaders in their own ridings. I am sure members have heard from every income bracket and from every economic sector about their government's destructive penchant for heavy intervention in the economy, for burdensome restrictions and regulations and for ever-increasing taxes. These things are hard to ignore.

The Liberal inclination is to pursue every opportunity to suppress and suffocate businesses. That is among the reasons that Canada has a serious red-tape crisis and and a serious productivity crisis.

We see it, for example, in the housing crisis that we examined only yesterday in the House, during our party's opposition motion. We have a housing crisis in the country, one that needs to be urgently addressed. Home ownership and rental affordability continue to pose a crisis for Canadians struggling because of this government's inflationary policies, with monthly mortgage costs more than doubling since the Liberal government took office. With the average cost of rent now at about $3,000 a month, we simply need more housing in the country. This must address the existing need, not to mention the coming demand as our population continues to grow.

The country needs smart, responsive policy that enables a response to the demand to provide the affordable housing stock that a growing population needs. However, to have that, the market needs the tools to be nimble. It needs the government to stop intervening in processes as a matter of course rather than only when strictly necessary.

Unfortunately, interference seems to be deeply rooted in the culture of the Liberals. Their response to a housing crisis is to stick with the failed policies and the entrenched interests that block construction of new housing. They insist on tying unnecessary red tape and layers of bureaucracy into the process of getting new housing built. It is instinctual for them to use restriction and red tape to complicate problems rather than reasonably streamlining processes in order to find solutions.

As another example, we have a shortage of health care workers in this country. After eight years under the Liberals, more than six million Canadians lack access to a family doctor. One solution to this issue is having more doctors. The obvious first source for more doctors would be those already in the country. We have nearly 20,000 foreign-trained doctors who are already here and could help ease those shortages. However, a great many of them cannot work in Canada because of the red tape and regulations that prevent them from getting licences.

There are ways to streamline the onerous layers of bureaucracy to allow these individuals to more efficiently prove their qualifications to work in Canada and to meet our standards. However, the Liberals will not do it. They prefer to keep failed processes and policies in place rather than responding in an innovative fashion. This is another thing that will change under a soon-to-come Conservative government. We are going to remove the gatekeepers and eliminate the red tape that prevents foreign-trained health care workers who are already here in our country from being able to practise their professions. Our party's blue seal plan to efficiently license professionals who prove they are qualified is going to help ease the shortage that, under the Liberals, has Canada projected to be short 44,000 physicians by 2030.

I want to take a minute now to address what I would say is probably the most significant thing we could do in this area with respect to removing some of the red tape, barriers and burdens that government puts up. This would really help to unlock the potential of our economy, not only in my home province of Alberta but also all across this country of Canada. This is to remove some of the burdensome, ever-changing regulations and restrictions on getting major energy projects built in this country.

I think about the pipeline projects that the current government has effectively killed with the ever-changing restrictions and regulations it has put in place. Northern gateway was ended because of a ban on tanker traffic off our west coast. Energy east finally threw the white flag up because the government kept changing the rules as it went along. Billions of dollars were being spent trying to go through the process. When companies are literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars, into the billions in some cases, to try to go through these processes, and the government just pulls the carpet out from under them, eventually they have to quit throwing good money after bad. That is what happened in the case of the energy east project.

I could go on about that, but I also want to touch on LNG, liquid natural gas. This has been widely talked about in recent years. As Conservatives, we have talked about it for a number of years now, pretty much since the government first took office. There were 15 proposals for LNG projects that sat on the Prime Minister's desk, and not one of those has been built. We could be meeting the needs of Europe and other parts of the world for LNG. We could replace Russian gas, for example, and coal-fired power in such places as China. However, those kinds of opportunities are stifled because of red tape and regulations in this country.

We could be creating billions of dollars in economic activity for this country. We could be creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for Albertans and for all Canadians. We could have an immeasurable and very positive impact on our environment by reducing emissions. We could have a major impact on human rights. We could have a major impact on improving global security and global energy security. This could be major. It could unlock so much potential in this country. We should be seeking ways to do that when we talk about housing, pipelines and major projects.

We could be doing so much if we could just get government interference out of the way. Everyone knows that we need regulations and that we need to ensure we have proper rules. However, we need to make sure that this is being done in a reasonable way. We need a government that understands the real costs of red tape. It makes our country less competitive in the world. It makes our citizens less successful. The government is content to continue to increase the size and the cost of government while creating more regulations that make life even more expensive. However, that failed approach does not bring in more skilled immigrants, doctors and tradespeople, nor does it bring bigger paycheques for the workers we need here in Canada. It is obvious that the real work on tackling red tape and bringing common sense to the regulatory structure will only begin under a new Conservative government.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have been in the House for midnight sessions before, and I guess I understand, in cases where Conservatives are opposed to legislation, that we hear the standard Conservative refrain, which seems to be something about North Korea. Whatever legislation they do not like, turning Canada into North Korea seems to be a recurring refrain that we have heard in the past. However, I am bit perplexed about Conservatives supporting legislation but still refusing to let it come to a vote. It does not seem to make a lot of sense.

I think that, given the gravity of what Canadians are facing in so many different ways, we do have a duty as members of Parliament to move legislation forward, to move it to committee. There is no doubt that legislation can be improved, but it is at committee where that normally happens, so I am a bit perplexed by the Conservative strategy.

As I have said before, there are two bloc parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, which is the Conservative Party.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess I could say that there are two Liberal parties in the House as well. There is the Liberal Party and then there is the NDP-Liberal party that is propping it up. If we want to talk about two parties, let us talk about that.

However, in response to the member's question, I would say this. The bill claims that there are three issues being addressed. It talks about ease of doing business, regulatory flexibility and agility, and integrity of the regulatory system. I think everyone here agrees that those are worthwhile goals, but we could say that the bill, at best, is something a little better than nothing.

I think it is really important to get on the record the points that I made tonight and to point out that there is so much more the government could be doing. However, when we talk about incredibly important points that would create billions of dollars in economic activity, that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country, that would improve environmental outcomes, that would be better for human rights and that would be better for global security, for a member to stand up and try to claim that somehow those things are not important just shocks me.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to challenge the Conservatives' rhetoric about red tape and the lack of red tape being removed in the bill before us. They have used a lot of words like needing tools to make regulations nimble. I would like to challenge this fictional reality with actual text that is in the bill, and I will read a tiny example of what is in the bill. It reads:

It also amends the Weights and Measures Act to, among other things, enable the Minister of Industry to permit a trader to temporarily use, or have in their possession for use, in trade, any device even if the device has not been approved by the Minister or examined by an inspector.

How is this a form of red tape when it is allowing measures to happen without specific devices, which are even undefined when it comes to the Weights and Measures Act?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess I would say that perhaps the member should ask that question of her coalition partner, the Liberal Party. It is their bill.

What I was really struck with listening to the member is this: It is really sad to see what has become of the once principled NDP. At one time, New Democrats were defenders of principles. They were not necessarily principles that I shared, but I had respect for the fact that they had principles they stood up for here in the House of Commons, and now to watch them essentially be defenders of a Liberal government that they are supposed to be in opposition to is really sad and pathetic to see.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here this evening and share my thoughts on Bill S-6. Before that, however, I just want to acknowledge that I heard the intervention from the hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby about the point of privilege that was raised earlier. I want to say that I welcome his comments and thoughts on that matter. It is an important issue. I will turn to Bill S-6 in a second, but I just want to say that the number one thing I hear from Canadians who happen to catch any of the proceedings on TV is that nobody answers a question, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the government cannot answer the simple question of when it found out.

Bill S-6 is supposed to modernize the regulatory environment. It would make 46 minor changes to 29 acts across 12 different organizations. Apparently, this is supposed to be an annual bill. It is a little bizarre that it is coming in through the Senate, but that tells us one thing: There is actually no owner within the government's executive branch that is supposed to be in charge of red tape or regulatory reduction, because it has to farm out this work to a member of the Senate. Why is it that the government has to find an owner in the Senate? The government does not have anyone over there who is responsible for regulatory modernization. It had to find an owner who is in a different chamber.

My first instinct when looking at the bill is that I am supportive of it. It seems reasonable, but we have to ask ourselves whether these are really the life-changing regulations that we should be looking to reduce for Canadians.

There are other questions I have for the government. Is it going to accept amendments at committee if we have other really good ideas? We just took another senator's private member's bill and blew it up. We are going to accept a ton of other amendments to that senator's bill, so hopefully we will do that with this one.

Also, the government is not even measuring how many regulations we have. There are over 4,000 regulations in the consolidated regulations of Canada, and we are going to take out 45, but we do not know how many regulations are elsewhere. There is a saying, “What gets measured gets done.” However, we do not even have a baseline, and the government, by its own admission, is thinking about bringing in over 250 regulations over the next couple of years. This year, it would take out only 45, so it seems a little bizarre to claim some great victory that is going to change the lives of Canadians. The regulations seem relatively minor. I look forward to hearing the amazing testimony at committee from officials who are going to say how this is going to revolutionize Canadian lives and make us more innovative, but I am not sure. We should not hold our breath for that.

It is important to remember what the government was elected on. Its members said that better is always possible. That sounds really nice, but why does someone not say, “Why can we not make government simpler?” Why can we not make it simpler for Canadians to deal with the government? I will give a great example. The government has an idea of the underused housing tax. If someone does not use their house for their own personal reasons, they would fill out a form and prove that it is an allowable use, for which they do not have to pay this special tax. However, the form is six pages long. If they try to figure out whether they qualify for an exemption, it is confusing to even the most sophisticated accountants, and they would have to do the form every single year. If they are a farmer or a builder and they build multiple homes, it is unclear whether they would qualify for the exemption, so they would have to fill out that paperwork every year.

Why does the government not just say, “Listen, if you fill out the form once, that is all you have to do until you dispose of the property”? Then it would make sense. If there is no change in control of the property, why would they have to fill out the form, the same six pages, just to say to the government that everything is the same as it was last year? This is the approach the government takes to bringing in new regulations.

It was not that long ago that one could only fax documents into the CRA. In fact, my experience is that I got locked out of my CRA account just a few weeks ago. I owed documents to the CRA. I had to provide documents but since I was locked out of my account, I could not get into it. Do members know what the suggestion was? It was to fax in the documents. I asked why I could not just email them in, but was told the CRA could not accept emails. “Well, how about you print off the email and go and put it on the fax machine, like is that not a reasonable solution?” These are the kinds of things that would make Canadians' lives easier and make it better to deal with the government.

Let us take another example of immigration and some of the delays in the immigration process along with some of the regulatory issues that Canadians are dealing with. There is a young woman who works as a PSW at a retirement home in Midland. This young woman is waiting for her permanent residency card. She has been waiting almost two years. Guess what? This woman is a qualified nurse but she cannot change jobs while she is waiting for her PR card. How incredibly sad is that, to know that we have a health care crisis in this country due to a lack of labour, to know we have a qualified nurse able to do that job but the government, with its policies and its bureaucracy, is preventing that from happening. It is not her fault. It is the government's fault. We are waiting too long to process applications.

There is another example, and the member for Banff—Airdrie mentioned doctors earlier. There are taxi drivers who are qualified doctors in other countries. I met one of them last week. Waheed is his name. He is from Afghanistan and is an incredible human being. He is a qualified doctor. He has to wait four more years to be able to practise family medicine in Canada. His English is excellent. He seemed like a very competent individual. Surely there is a way we can get this person into the medical profession a lot sooner.

Another great example of some regulations we should change has to do with Transport Canada. It cannot approve medicals quickly enough to make sure that we can get pilots approved to fly. I will give an example. Gary lives in my riding. Gary is recently retired and Gary builds his own planes. That is what he does as a hobby. All he wants to do in his retirement years is fly a couple of planes. His medical has been sitting waiting to be approved at Transport Canada for almost two years. He says, “Adam, all I want to do is fly my planes. How many years do you think I have to wait to get this approved by Transport Canada?”

These are regulations that will actually change people's lives if we can speed them up. Instead, we have this list that seems like a bit of a list of low-hanging fruit from a bunch of other places. It is unclear to me what the actual impact will be of all these regulations. I hope that we will get a chance to get some evidence at committee and the government will be held accountable for how this is actually going to improve the lives of Canadians.

I will give one example as I close that the government might want to take back to its own people. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act provides that governments may allow electronic documents in place of paper documents. It is an opt-in provision for departments. I have a simple solution: departments must have a provision for electronic documents and paper documents. That would be a very simple, easy law to change that would then require each department, where they have a form, to also produce a digital version.

I think there are lots of things we could do. I hope the government is open to suggestions at committee and I look forward to fielding all of its questions right now.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague referenced early in his comments some of the commitments that the present government made when it was elected. The phrases that come to my mind are “Sunny ways” and that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

Could he share his opinion as to the transparency of the present government, given the issues that we are facing tonight?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity provided by my hon. colleague to expand on the reasons for which the government believed it was elected in the first place. “Sunny ways” was the refrain we heard. We also heard “better is always possible”.

Those things sound really great, but then eight years later, things get a little tired. It is not so sunny anymore, and there is a bit of a cloud hanging over everything. It is a little less transparent than it was, and better does not really seem to be always possible. It seems to be getting much more difficult for the government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, since he is on the topic of weighing in on the various slogans, I am wondering if he wants to comment on why he did not once say “bring it home” in his last speech. We know that is the new-found slogan of the day for Conservatives. Maybe he wants to address that.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us bring it home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do, to some extent, agree with some of the member's statements, especially when it comes to the lack of impacts the bill has in engaging indigenous peoples in the various pieces of legislation it would be making amendments to. I wonder if the member would agree that Bill S-6 could be improved by ensuring regulations would require that indigenous peoples are better engaged in any of these pieces of legislation.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we should be engaging with indigenous communities on how we could better serve them. Some of them, as I understand, still use paper forms, and it is actually very difficult for them to deal with the government.

Let us be also clear that all regulations are not bad regulations. It is like saying unchecked capitalism is not necessarily the best thing. If we look at the 1930s, we had the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission because of tons of fraud. We are not saying to get rid of every single regulation, we are saying to let us just be smart about it, and the suggestion from the hon. member is a very good one.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I loved the personal examples my colleague provided within his speech.

Over the last week, this member has asked questions about not only the CRA deadline but also the implication of still having public servants from the CRA out on strike. I would like to know if he might provide any further suggestions to the government as it considers these important negotiations with this important group at this time, as Canadians want to file their taxes and receive their returns.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems rather unfair for a government to impose a penalty on somebody for filing their taxes late when they are unable to get simple questions answered by CRA.

We said to extend the tax filing deadline, and it did not like that for a bunch of reasons. That is fine, but how about they just not impose penalties or waive penalties for those people who owe money but who file late because they cannot get a reasonable question answered.

The government says not to worry because they can use Charlie the chatbot. Can members guess what? Charlie the chatbot just gives random generic information, and one cannot provide Charlie the chatbot with any personal information. I do not really know how Charlie is going to help replace the 35,000 workers out on strike while they are trying to reach a deal. Let us just not punish Canadians for the government's incompetence.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill S-6. How I came to this bill is probably like many people. We read the title: “an act respecting regulatory modernization”. It reminds me of going through Netflix when someone wants to watch something new so they look at the title and think that it kind of fits, and maybe they see the trailer or read the bio and a bit of what is going to go on in the video, and they say that it is something they can probably get behind.

We have lots of regulatory issues in Canada and modernizing them is probably a good thing. We know that over these eight long years, the current Liberal government has introduced more legislation that restricts people. It restricts our ability to get the services we need from our government and it restricts our freedoms and our rights in Canada. If any bill talks about “respecting regulatory modernization”, I would be all over it. There is a list of the departments. There are 12 organizations. I am not going to read all of them, but all of these are things that we should modernize, especially on the regulatory side. We have so much red tape. It has been said that we are the most heavily red-taped country in the world, which holds back our freedoms.

All this excess of regulation makes people sick and tired of dealing with government. They throw up their papers and say, “To heck with this, I am not doing this, not applying for that, not going to get into this program, not going to get this grant and not going to apply for this opportunity”, because there is no end to the red tape, the forms and the excess of regulation that Liberals are known for.

It goes back to the philosophy, I believe, of the Liberals, which is that government knows best, that someone knows better than the citizens. We have seen this time after time with respect to different legislation that gets introduced here. There is this feeling that the poor citizens need the government's protection and they need the hands of the all-knowing government to reach into their lives and make them difficult. I just think it is garbage. I think of all the waste we have in government, all the duplication and all the unnecessary things that everyday, common people go through just to interact with their government. The government is supposed to help them, but in a lot of ways it hurts Canadians. It hurts Canadians' productivity. It hurts our potential to grow our country, to expand, and to create opportunities for the next generation.

That is where the current government has failed miserably in some of the regulatory changes it did early on. I do question how history is going to look back at these eight long years. Hopefully they are coming to an end here soon. I think of the lost opportunity and of the regulatory change in Bill C-69. This is one bill that is terrible for our country. We have seen the results of the restrictive nature of shutting down everything. This goes from coast to coast to coast. I think of one of the largest missed opportunities for Canada. When we look back on these eight long years, what was the worst missed economic opportunity for this generation and probably the next? I think of the impact on liquefied natural gas.

When the Liberals came to government, they knew better than the industry and the citizens about what we should be doing to hopefully lower our emissions and grow our economy. There were 15 liquefied natural gas plants proposed for Canada. This is not just a mom-and-pop gas station down the road; this is $10 billion to $20 billion of economic driving force in those communities, and we had 15 of them proposed. Do members know how many got built? Zero of these plants were built. They were going to be massive economic drivers, and it was all derailed because of Bill C-69 and the Liberal government.

This is the regulatory framework that the Liberals put in. Their end goal was to shut down industry, and they shut it down. They shut down not only the opportunity on the coasts but also the opportunity for well-paying jobs in my province. In Saskatchewan, the drilling rates for natural gas dropped. I shudder to think of how many opportunities and powerful paycheques these families would have had if the Liberals had not brought in this regulation. It would have released so much natural gas out of Canada. That would actually have lowered emissions.

The gas from those plants, for the most part, was headed to Asia and the European market. We are positioned perfectly. Canada can supply the two largest markets with liquefied natural gas. There is no other market that has the known reserves that we have in the ground, positioned in the perfect location in terms of both Europe and Asia.

When we fast forward to what has happened since these plants were cancelled because of the regulatory regime, where the goalposts kept moving, we find that Asia has more coal plants. What the Liberal government does not understand is that we need energy to survive in this climate and to prosper. It is the same in other countries, where our liquefied natural gas could have offset all the tonnage of coal that Asia has been using. What a missed opportunity.

We could have lowered our emissions, provided well-paying jobs for Canadians and collected royalties that could be put back into our society. This is the virtuous circle that we should be encouraging in every industry, but this is an example of the heavy-handed regulatory changes and the red tape that the Liberals have introduced and that have canned so many projects. It is a shame. I think of the missed economic opportunity. There is no larger one that I know of in the history of our country other than the government's change in the regulatory process that killed those 15 plants.

That is on the environmental side. We know that natural gas is a superior source of energy over coal. It lowers emissions and provides good paycheques in Canada. Moreover, it could have saved lives in Europe; this is probably the area that I hope the members on the other side realize most. Energy security is the number one issue in Europe right now. Putin had the control of European countries for natural gas. As we know, unfortunately, what has transpired with the invasion of Ukraine has brought about a real challenge in Europe's energy security. How many lives would have been saved if we had these plants? Putin may not even have invaded Ukraine or, if he did, the war would have been that much shorter because of those countries that rely on natural gas.

It is not going away. As much as there are people who would wish oil and gas away in our lifetime or on our planet, it is always going to be within our mix. I think of how much more Ukraine could have counted on its neighbours in Europe if they were not worried about Putin cutting off their natural gas. That relates exactly to Bill C-69 and why the Liberals changed the goalposts and killed this industry that was just getting on its feet. I cannot think of another regulatory change that has had as much of a negative impact on our planet, be it environmentally or for energy security, as the regulatory change on liquefied natural gas has done.

I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time.

Going back to the regulatory side of things, any time one puts a break on productivity, it hurts the citizens that one is supposedly there to serve. That is wrong. It has affected my home, the Speaker's home and all our homes. We are going to bring it home.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am curious to know how many of those liquified natural gas plants the former Conservative Harper government was able to build. Just one?

More importantly, is the member sure that the future of our country is so dependent on liquified natural gas? There is no doubt that to some degree it will be used. However, what we are seeing, at least what I am seeing in my own riding, is people who are literally cutting their gas line off at the street because they are converting their heat sources to heat pumps. Heat pumps are the newest thing. They do not require natural gas. There is actually a shift, at least from a home heating perspective, away from natural gas.

I am curious why Conservatives continually put so much of their political capital into fossil fuels.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have an urgent message for Canadians if they heard that Liberal member speak. They should not cut the gas line to their house. Winter is coming back, probably in seven months. The Liberal member thinks that people should be cutting the line to their furnace. We heard it here first, the Liberals would like people to go home and cut their natural gas furnace off. This is ridiculous.

On the facts about liquified natural gas, we approved the only one that is getting built right now. It is not done yet, because the regulatory changes have slowed the process. The United States has built six since then, and they have 20 more in the books. That is jobs and paycheques that should go to Canadians, not Americans, and it is all because of these Liberals.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member speaks about cuts, and of course the Conservatives are absolutely great at cutting essential services for Canadians.

We saw that in the dismal decade when the Harper regime was in power. We saw them slashing health care. We saw them forcing seniors to work more years before they could ever get to their pension. They slashed services for veterans. Unbelievable. Imagine, veterans who have given their lives to Canada, who laid their lives on the line, and the Conservative response was to slash all of those services that were provided to veterans.

Of course, the Conservatives did not cut for everybody. They gave unbelievable amounts of money to Canada's big banks for profits. They put in place the Harper network of tax evasion countries so that we ended up losing $30 billion a year.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is, what are the Conservatives going to cut this time?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I feel sorry the member. He has been here an awfully long time, and maybe the length of time is shading some of his memories.

The Harper Conservative government increased health transfers every year by 6%. What the member just shared could be viewed as incorrect, but I would not use unparliamentary language to describe the misleading statistics that he put forward because he knows that is wrong.

I would like to add that the member is a coalition partner with the Liberals. The last time the Liberals were in government, before this time, they slashed the transfers to the provincial governments. In my province, what that meant was 52 rural hospitals were closed, because the Liberals cut the health transfers to Saskatchewan. It is on them as a partner in this costly coalition.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was just recently in Edmonton for Earth Day and toured a home that had just cut the gas line supply to the House. It was in Edmonton, where they get rather cold winters. They have an air source heat pump that was installed. They have also installed solar panels on their roof.

The installer was there to talk about the current demand. They cannot keep up in Edmonton with homes that want air source heat pumps installed, because they work so well in cold climates and cut the heating bills substantially while also keeping air quality in the home safer.

I just thought the hon. member would be thrilled to know that this is actually something that happens and does not spring from the imagination of the member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member was in Edmonton last weekend. It has been a long spring, but it was not freezing.

What I would put my faith in, in part, is for homeowners' ability to get insurance. Insurance would not cover the house because they know that it is an inconsistent heat source. They will not get coverage.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, tonight, we are looking at Bill S-6, which would not be cutting regulations; it is about modernizing regulations. We missed some opportunities where we could have improved various aspects of Canadian society by actually cutting some regulations and streamlining some other regulations.

This may just be my own childhood and background working in a small business. We had a restaurant and gift shop on the Cabot Trail. We had a lot of tourists come through. My father, who was rather funny, kept getting notices from the Government of Canada. One day, the notice would be about tariffs on T-shirts made in Bangladesh, and another day it would be about something else. He finally decided to start a wall along where people had to wait to get to the washroom. He posted all the notices that we received from the Government of Canada. He then made a lovely sign so he could keep it up to date. It said, “The Government of Canada never sleeps.” Perhaps I have been thinking of it because it is approaching midnight, and I suppose I never sleep, but the truth is that we could use some sense in regulations.

I recently met with a wonderful group that was here meeting with many members of Parliament, The College of Family Physicians of Canada. This is one area in which I wish we would see action. I generally believe we need regulations to protect health and safety, but some regulations simply do not make sense. The ones that generate unnecessary paperwork for doctors hurt our health care system because they tie doctors and their staff up with unnecessary, unproductive work. This includes, for example, having to write a letter every five years to say that a patient still has an amputated leg. There is also paperwork that has to be issued over and over again to help veterans. It takes up a doctor's time to fill out forms and write letters that are completely unnecessary. Often, especially in the case of the CRA, the patient ends up paying for the service separately, and that is the person who is least able to pay. There would be a great deal of sense in trying to figure out how to reduce the regulatory burden, especially where it is impeding our health care system.

We have been talking about this piece of legislation in terms of modernizing. Only one party, the Conservative Party, has put forward speakers tonight. Why am I standing here? It is because I am a bit worried about this bill. It is not necessarily just routine, regulatory modernization. My concern is that this bill, which affects 29 different acts, will go only to the industry committee for review. Most of it is pretty uncontroversial, which is why there has been very little interest in it tonight.

My concern is about what happens with the Species at Risk Act changes. When I read this over, I am not entirely sure they are not substantive. They do not appear to be entirely about modernizing; they appear to be substantial or at least substantive changes to the Species at Risk Act. We do not have a great record with the Species at Risk Act. For instance, the southern resident killer whale was listed as endangered in 2003, and the full recovery plan did not come out until 2018. Any changes to the Species at Risk Act that are more than purely routine must go to the environment committee, not the industry committee. We can send it to committee and study it there, but there are 29 different acts. What if something in there is a mistake and we just go ahead with it because these are just normal changes? What about the change to the Fisheries Act to give a fisheries officer the discretion to not lay charges? What if that is substantive, and what if that is a mistake? It is going to go only to the industry committee.

Wrapping things up, I urge some caution here. This is a missed opportunity to actually reduce regulations, but it is also not modernizing them. In the reading I have done since working on the bill for this evening and since the bill was tabled in the Senate, I have some concerns. I express those concerns now knowing full well this bill will be sent right away to the industry committee and probably promulgated without changes. I hope members of the committee will ensure that they are at least satisfied that changes to the Fisheries Act and changes to the Species at Risk Act would not, in fact, hurt nature in this country any more than we have seen through recent decisions. This includes the Roberts Bank expansion in the Port of Vancouver, which will surely hurt those very same southern resident killer whales.