SoVote

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

May/3/23 8:30:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

1886 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/3/23 8:40:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/3/23 8:41:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

177 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/3/23 8:42:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/3/23 8:43:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

148 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

May/3/23 8:44:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/3/23 8:45:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/3/23 8:45:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

1557 words

All Topics

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

May/3/23 8:56:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/23 8:57:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/3/23 8:58:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

137 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/23 8:58:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

35 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/3/23 8:59:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

May/3/23 9:00:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

118 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/3/23 9:00:51 p.m.
Watch

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.

26 words

Simcoe
Speak

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

May/3/23 9:01:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

40 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/3/23 9:01:22 p.m.
Watch

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.

29 words

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/3/23 9:01:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

1162 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/3/23 9:11:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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?

145 words

All Topics

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/3/23 9:12:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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.

143 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 190