SoVote

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

May/3/23 6:24:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

Madam Speaker, I heard a riveting comment from a colleague behind me, but I will not go that far. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise in the House this evening to contribute to the debate on Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, court challenges program. Indeed, as has been mentioned in this House, this program has an off-and-on history in this place and in government through the Department of Canadian Heritage. I did have the honour and privilege of serving for some time at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Before I get into the meat of my speech, I do want to reflect on one of the more famous quotations from one of the great parliamentarians of this place. The Right Honourable John Diefenbaker was one of the great defenders and protectors of Canadian freedom. He said, “Parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.” I think too often in this place we forget about our role as the protectors and defenders of the freedoms of Canadians. If we look back at the history of some of the great orators, some of the great defenders in this place, including Diefenbaker and his bill of rights, the first attempt at enshrining the rights and freedoms of Canadians in a single federal statute was by Diefenbaker. From his humble upbringing, his birth in Neustadt, Ontario, which is just north of my riding, Perth—Wellington, to his time as a defender, as a defence counsel and during his time as a parliamentarian, his focus was on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That was what he lived for in this place. We will recall that it was under Diefenbaker that the first woman was appointed to cabinet. It was under Diefenbaker that indigenous peoples in all corners of this country finally had the right to vote and it was through Diefenbaker's bill of rights that we saw the first written efforts at enshrining the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That history and protection of rights and freedoms continues under other Conservative leaders as well. We need to be proud of their efforts. Indeed, under the leadership of former prime minister Mulroney and former foreign minister Joe Clark we saw the strong stand that Mulroney and Clark took in defending us on the world stage in calling out the apartheid regime in South Africa. We saw the efforts they led in the Commonwealth to make that happen and we saw the work they undertook here at home in Canada when it came to the defence of Canadian rights and freedoms. Their efforts on the two constitutional accords did, in fact, fail but, nonetheless, attempted to enshrine those rights and freedoms and ensure that all members in this country signed on. To the issue at hand of this bill, Bill C-316, I think Canadians would be forgiven in not fully understanding why this is before us today. Members will know that, in fact, the court challenges program exists today. It is a program that is run out of the University of Ottawa and funded by the Government of Canada, so why is this being done today? Canadians might be forgiven for perhaps seeing it somewhat odd or ironic that the government is creating a program that would sue itself, that would provide funds for the Canadian public to sue themselves. There is an odd strategy there. If we look back at the history of the court challenges program, in 1978 this was first established under then prime minister Pierre E. Trudeau. It was primarily for language cases. We look at the importance of language rights here today in Canada, and indeed we have a bill before the House, as we speak, Bill C-13, which is the modernization of the Official Languages Act. As luck would have it, was one of the first files I worked on when I first came here in 2015 as a member of Parliament. I was the vice-chair of the official languages committee, the Anglo from southern Ontario at the official languages committee but it was, nonetheless, a great opportunity to learn my beloved second language. The importance of having the rights of official language minorities protected across the country is, indeed, very important. Whether someone is a Franco-Ontarian, a Franco-Albertan or even from a small language community in the country, it is important to protect their right to be able to receive services in their second language. My time is dwindling, but I understand I will have four minutes remaining when the House takes up this important issue next. I look forward to concluding my remarks on Bill C-316 next time.

802 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/23 6:29:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

The hon. member is quite correct. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

36 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/23 6:30:16 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to split his time? Some hon. members: Agreed.

18 words

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

May/3/23 6:30:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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

22 words

All Topics

Hon. Patty Hajdu

May/3/23 6:30:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

25 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus

May/3/23 6:30:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

232 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus

May/3/23 6:33:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

636 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/3/23 6:40:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

78 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus

May/3/23 6:40:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/3/23 6:41:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

162 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus

May/3/23 6:42:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

165 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

May/3/23 6:44:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

91 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus

May/3/23 6:44:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/3/23 6:45:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

1518 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/3/23 6:54:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

75 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

May/3/23 6:55:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/3/23 6:56:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

May/3/23 6:57:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

May/3/23 6:58:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

154 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

May/3/23 6:58:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

227 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 190