SoVote

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/3/23 7:31:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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

25 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/23 7:31:28 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have consent? Some hon. members: Agreed.

10 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/3/23 7:31:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

1443 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/3/23 7:40:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/3/23 7:41:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

131 words

All Topics

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

May/3/23 7:42:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/3/23 7:43:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

214 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/3/23 7:44:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

69 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/3/23 7:44:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/3/23 7:45:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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—

1818 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/3/23 7:55:49 p.m.
Watch

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.

48 words

Interpreters

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

May/3/23 7:56:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

May/3/23 7:56:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

172 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/3/23 7:57:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

186 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

May/3/23 7:58:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

203 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/3/23 7:59:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

May/3/23 8:00:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

May/3/23 8:01:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

2979 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

May/3/23 8:20:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

May/3/23 8:21:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

195 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 190