SoVote

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/3/23 10:17:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, in a bill on modernization and regulations, I feel compelled to pay tribute to a woman from my region, Jocelyne Trudel, who has to retire from her job at the Caisse Desjardins because her term is up, in line with regulations. I want to pay tribute to her because, first of all, I was a member of the board of directors of the credit union. I had to resign when I was elected. This woman did everything very thoroughly and rigorously. She is a very generous woman. I really wanted to pay tribute to her today. I have a question for my colleague. How can we help our administrators simplify all the paperwork for our businesses? Is there any way to do this?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/3/23 10:18:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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

79 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

May/3/23 10:19:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague did, sort of, reference his life before entering the House of Commons. We are so fortunate to have him here. He has a very strong background in business. As the government goes on to do the third iteration of Bill S-6, from a completely business perspective, and as we did see in The Globe and Mail today that this is a time when fewer Canadians than ever are considering starting a small business, what are some considerations for business or even small business?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/3/23 10:19:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I know so many friends who are trying to start a business or are already in business, and the amount of red tape that they are facing is incredible. It is so risky nowadays to think about starting a business. Those regulations start with the government. The government has to understand the common sense of doing business for businesses to be competitive, for their ability to survive in the long term, and to be productive enough so that they can continue to do business and be encouraged to do so. The current environment of doing business in this country is not encouraging whatsoever. The government needs to act very quickly.

112 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/3/23 10:20:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Uqaqtittiji, considering the title of this bill is an act respecting regulatory modernization, in this time of reconciliation, a lot of legislation is quite outdated when it comes to indigenous peoples. A lot of regulations are quite outdated when it comes to indigenous peoples. Specifically I would like to ask about the Species at Risk Act, because it does point to some species that impact my riding as I talked about to another member of Parliament, regarding barren-ground caribou, the Atlantic walrus and the Atlantic cod. I think the Species at Risk Act would make significant improvements about how these species at risk would be dealt with. Does the member agree that, in terms of modernizing regulations, modernization must include regulations to ensure that indigenous engagement always happens when it is going to impact indigenous well-being?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/3/23 10:22:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I believe the indigenous community, as well as other communities in Canada, and business communities are the victims of red tape and regulations. The red tape and the bureaucratic processes are so thick that they are basically stopping oxygen from getting into the body. That is how I describe it. We need to open up. We need to realize that we cannot continue doing what we are doing, because the longer this takes, the more risk we have of killing the body. I hope that is not going to be case, but we need to do better and we need to do it faster.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/3/23 10:23:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, it is 10:20 p.m. on a Wednesday night. I know that members have been looking forward to the highlight of the evening, obviously my speech. I just want to take a moment to recognize the hard-working employees of the House who are with us this evening. I want to thank the pages in particular. We often forget about them, but they are here for us and they work with us. They are our work colleagues. I saw some of them studying earlier. I even tried to help one of them solve integrals, but without success. I will have to review my math. In short, I want to thank them. I want them to know that we know that they work hard and that we think highly of them. Let us look at the bill for what it is. In the description I have here, it talks about minor regulatory amendments to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes” and so on. Let us be honest. This is a routine bill. Once in a while, the government adjusts the regulations and updates laws and standards. We should not be debating this for six hours, which is what we are doing until midnight tonight. This is a waste of time. It does not make any sense. It is the very embodiment of parliamentary inefficiency. This bill has no principle or even spirit. These are regulatory changes. The bill should be sent directly to committee for study. It amends a whole pile of legislation. That requires expertise. I think it is a shameful waste of the House's resources and members' time to be messing around with this bill until midnight. Still, it contains some important and interesting elements. It is true that it will make life easier for businesses and that it will simplify many things. There is a little bit of everything and a whole lot of nothing in there. There are bits about electricity, gas, the use of new technologies. We want to encourage international harmonization of standards. I know everyone is passionate about that; I can see it in their faces. People are as passionate as I am about this. We are talking about gas standards, weights and measures. We are talking about allowing more flexibility for new technologies, another one of my biggest passions. We are also going to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that there is no more confusion between the annual report and the annual declaration, so that some companies do not get delisted without their knowledge, as Jean Perron said. There are a bunch of changes like that. Some are more substantial. The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act is being amended, for example. Essentially, when there are changes to standards and regulations, that needs to be published in the Canada Gazette. Members, parliamentarians, the public and experts in the field need to be keep abreast through the Canada Gazette. What we are doing here is repealing section 15 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, which requires these publications. We understand the spirit of the bill because the Standards Council of Canada conducted an analysis of 19 Natural Resources Canada regulations. It became apparent that there were artefacts and old stock, that 167 of the 367 standards were removed, replaced, were no longer managed or no longer served any purpose. What we are saying here is that we are going to facilitate the process of regulatory changes. There are essentially a few little problems because in the bill as written, there is no distinction between minor, cosmetic, functional changes and changes that might be more substantial. Regulations and standards in the oil sector are important, as members know. There are a bunch of standards like that. I referred to them earlier when I was asking questions of some of my colleagues, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. This serves to remind us that the government has legislative tools available to adjust regulations or minor pieces of legislation that are ill-suited, contain errors or have aged poorly, and that it can do so routinely, as we are doing today. I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Not many people know a lot about that committee, but essentially, we assess problems that may exist in regulations. There are legal advisers who tell us, for example, that the French version does not say the same thing as the English version, or that there is an issue because the interpretation of certain regulations may be ambiguous for the courts and could cause problems. There have even been cases where there were potential charter violations. The way the regulations were written could have caused major concerns. This week, this committee issued a notice of disallowance for an order. The problem went back 25 years. It is not uncommon for us to write to ministers one, two, three, four or five times and not get a response or a visit. Some of our correspondence is as old as Methuselah. We go back and forth with the department but do not get any answers. I would urge the government to think about that and think about the importance of correcting these errors in current laws. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé was saying that this legislation had been written five years ago and was only now being debated. There have been issues in some laws for a long time. They never get resolved, and we are being kept waiting. I am appealing to the sensitivity of the government members. Beyond that, if we want to simplify matters, if we want to make things better for businesses, the business community and taxpayers, there are solutions that we could debate. One of them is Quebec's independence. I know how much everybody loves filing two tax returns. We spoke about that earlier. However, do we really want two finance departments? That results in two tax rates, two finance ministers, two finance departments, two sets of public servants who draw up budgets and study estimates. That is inefficient. It might be worthwhile eliminating one of them. We have two revenue agencies, one in Ottawa and one in Quebec City. We could fix that. In addition, if we had a single tax return, we could reassign the CRA employees working in Quebec offices to other tasks for which they are qualified, without cutting any jobs. This would result in greater productivity and savings for our businesses. That would be a good thing. It would also be a good thing if we no longer had two environment ministers with two sets of standards. That would be pretty good. It would be a good thing if we did not have two governments bickering over who will have first crack at the tax base, who will be the first to claim a GST point or a QST point. We could eliminate all these inefficiencies. I can guess what my colleagues are thinking. I know that the two health ministers are on their minds. The first minister manages hospitals and provides services. The second imposes conditions. The first is not sure whether they want the transfer because they are wondering whether it costs more to submit all the reports in order to meet the conditions. It is almost not worth taking the money. That is not even to mention the fact that the tax rules for the capital allowance are inconsistent between Quebec and Ottawa, which causes confusion for businesses and takes up more resources. There is also the matter of diplomacy, international relations, and Canadian embassies and Quebec offices around the world. How inefficient is that? It is no less inefficient than having two departments of transport or duplicating environmental assessments because Ottawa insists on having its own, thereby violating Quebec's environmental sovereignty. Quebec is also being told what to do in the area of infrastructure because Ottawa wants to impose standards. It has even gotten to the point where the Conservatives want housing standards. There is also duplication of work and conditions imposed for post-secondary education. The federal government is even interfering in the hiring of university professors and research chairs. I am not talking about immigration mix-ups. Why not hand that over to Quebec City? Why not do the same with housing, the French language and labour law? There is a federal labour law and a provincial labour law, two innovation departments, two natural resources departments, two departments that deal with climate change. Here, there is heritage, which is supposed to take care of the French language, yet does not care what Quebec's department of culture wants. When things are light, life is good. Everyone likes that. Therefore, in order to make things lighter, we should leave Canada. We should leave. I am certain the other nine provinces can have a lot of fun without us.

1508 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/3/23 10:32:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, that is not true. I would miss Quebec if it were to leave Canada, as the member spoke about towards the end of his speech. I would even suggest that a good portion of Quebeckers, if not a majority, would feel the same way. At the beginning of the member's intervention, he spoke about whether there is even a need for having this discussion right now, and I could not agree more. We are literally talking about something right now that everybody is in agreement with. It has primarily just been Conservatives getting up to speak to this. I am baffled as to why that is when everybody is in agreement, notwithstanding the fact that I know people stand up and use the excuse of making sure they represent their constituents by talking about it. Can the member try to shed some light on why we are not moving along? All it takes is for everybody to stop talking; then, by default, we would just go to a vote. Could he give his thoughts on why we are not able to do that?

186 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/3/23 10:34:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I am not privy to the conversations and dealings that led to this situation. I will repeat what I said earlier. This is nonsense. When a bill is given second reading, we accept the principle and decide whether to refer it to committee for study, because we agree with the spirit of the bill, because it is a great idea. We are talking about small regulatory changes that affect a lot of statutes and that require a very technical evaluation. It is by definition committee work. Those who think it is a good idea to debate this for hours, until midnight, have not been following the debates. The quality of the content of the speeches is proof that the House of Commons is not the place to go into great detail. This is committee work. I am disappointed, because there is plenty of work to be done. We have plenty of legislation to study. There is no shortage of debates to be had. We are missing out on good opportunities to work intelligently.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

May/3/23 10:35:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention, and I want to compliment him on both the rapidity and the simplicity of his speech. Because I do not understand the French language well enough, I also want to compliment our interpreter services for providing a very simple way for me to understand. I actually have a two-part question for the member. First of all, given the plainness he used so that I was able to understand, I would expect the member would be able to support our Conservative initiatives, when we form government, for plain-language laws, which would reduce a lot of bureaucratic language. Second, I was a bit confused by the member's constant points about removing duplicity in terms of having two departments looking at different things. Would he then want 10 departments or 13 departments looking after the various aspects of provincial law, or would it be better to have just one federal aspect?

161 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/3/23 10:36:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I hope the interpretation services are paying attention because I will say this slowly. What I would do is take Quebec, leave Canada and there would no longer be a federal government. We would get rid of half the departments and we would be none the worse for it.

51 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/3/23 10:36:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mirabel for his speech, and from it, I take the irony of us talking about efficiencies in a bill that is about efficiencies. I am interested in the comments around reduction and duplicity, but I wonder if there are some other in-house efficiencies that the member could share. I sometimes think about whether we could have shorter speeches to get more business done in the House. Does he have other ideas on how we can be more efficient in the House?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/3/23 10:37:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/3/23 10:38:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this evening, as well as the various people who are watching at home. I know my kids are watching. They wanted to watch the hockey game, but I told them no, as it was important for them to be watching their dad on CPAC instead. Given the score, though, they will be glad of the choice that has been made for them. I want to assure members I will not be splitting my time, by the way. The bill we are debating tonight is Bill S-6. This is a bill dealing with the issue of regulatory modernization. I have to say we have heard some complaints from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who does a lot of speaking and does a lot of complaining about other people speaking in this place. He has been asking why people are interested in speaking to this bill. Why are people interested in speaking on behalf of their constituents about the important policy issues that are raised by this bill? It is clear in the substantive, important speeches that have been given by various members that there is a lot to say. To distill the essence of why this debate is important is that, on so many fronts, there is the government's failure to take seriously the need to modernize regulations; consider the competitiveness of our economy; and consider, broadly speaking, the environment in which businesses operate. The failure of the government to understand what is important for our businesses to succeed is at the heart of so many challenges facing this country. It is important to remind people of something that I think Conservatives understand. That is that we want to have strong social programs and those strong social programs must be built on a foundation of economic prosperity. If we ignore the economic prosperity side of the equation and then talk about how we want to be giving more money to people, that is not going to add up at a certain point. That is why we need to have a strong economy driven by a strong private sector that is able to create jobs and deliver opportunity. A strong economy provides the platform on which we can then do more for each other and more for the most vulnerable. It has to be on that foundation of prosperity. It is something that the government and the parties of the left in general, I think, very much fail to understand. We need to have a strong economy built on a strong private sector, and that requires the kind of regulatory modernization we are talking about. We have had various bills over the last number of weeks that have dealt, broadly speaking, with questions of the economy. We have had regulatory modernization proposals, and we have this bill, Bill S-6. We also had the budget implementation act. I have to say that, in the midst of all of it, and I would never refer to the presence or absence of members in this place, but let us just say that, in terms of the statements that are on the record, the questions that are answered, we have heard very little from the finance minister. We now have a discussion going on at the finance committee about the budget implementation act and there is a simple ask from Conservative. On issues around the state of our regulations, the state of our economy and what is in the budget, it is a reasonable ask to say that Canada's finance minister should come to speak to the budget for, let us say, at least two hours. Not only has the finance minister not answered questions in the House very frequently for quite some time, but also the government is not willing to agree to a simple amendment to the programming motion from Conservatives saying that the finance minister should come for two hours to answer questions on the budget implementation act because the finance minister is the person setting the economic agenda in this country. I know that Bill Morneau, the previous finance minister, has said since leaving office that most of the decisions about the economic direction of the country are made in the Prime Minister's office, but if we believe that it is the finance minister who is setting the tone, surely we should expect that the finance minister would be available to answer questions on these important topics. As it relates to the strength of our economy, and as it relates to regulatory modernization, I think there are many questions to be answered. Here is what I see in the approach of the government. The approach of the government is kind of a retread of this old left-wing, government-knows-best idea of the economy, but it expresses itself now in a very different way. At one time, parties of the left were more explicit in calling for draconian state regulations, state control, picking winners and losers, interfering in the economy, and controlling the means of production, as at least perhaps one member is still willing to say. That is the kind of explicit interventionist language we used to hear from parties of the left in this place and elsewhere. Now the government is taking a new approach to the justification of its agenda, but it is still a retread of the same basic philosophical idea, which is that, fundamentally, the government knows best which sectors are going to succeed in the future, where new technologies are going to come from and which sectors are no longer required. Therefore, its budget has this policy of significant subsidies toward certain sectors, piling regulatory burdens on other sectors and saying which kinds of things are going to be the sectors, the companies and the investments of the future, while these other things are just not. The government is still trying to make these decisions, but it is trying to implement these decisions with a greater level of subtlety. It is the long arm of the state trying to mask itself in velvet gloves, but the interventionism inherent in the government's industrial policy is still very evident. The government's efforts to undertake regulatory reform are actually very selective. It would like to talk about regulatory reform but be selective in its implementation of it for selective subsidies and tax advantages to certain kinds of companies, certain companies in certain regions, and leave in place a significant regulatory burden in other areas. Conservatives will support Bill S-6 because it is better than nothing, but we also see it as lacking in ambition. It is lacking in ambition for truly making this the kind of country where, as I think we used to be, we are a great magnet for investment, not just in particular sectors where the government is trying to subsidize what it thinks the winners of the future will be, but to be the kind of country where anybody with a good and profitable idea can come here to invest, and those regulatory burdens would be removed. By the way, one area where we really need regulatory reform is in the area of getting critical natural resource projects, especially in the oil and gas sector, approved. The need for this was put in sharp focus by the horrific genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the context of this invasion, it became clear what a mistake it had been for various European countries to become so dependent on gas imports from Russia. The need for a rapid transition away from that dependency became very clear. There was an opportunity for Canada to say we have a unique vocation in the democratic world and that is to supply the world with secure and stable access to energy. At the time, Conservatives were saying that. If we look at the democratic world, most of the world's democracies are geographically small, densely populated nations. In Europe, but also in east Asia, there are many democracies that look like that, geographically small and densely populated. Canada is relatively unique in the democratic world as being a geographically vast, sparsely populated nation that is very rich in natural resources. We could be that critical source of energy security for our friends, allies and partners throughout the democratic world so they do not need to be reliant on hostile powers that do not share our values and do not have the same security interests. I would like to see Canada step up to fill that vital need. To do that, we will need to modernize, update and improve our regulations when it comes to getting projects approved. It is clear Liberals do not want us to fulfill that role. They talk a good talk sometimes about supporting Ukraine, but they do not see this vital strategic opportunity for Canada stepping up to fill this gap and be a supplier of the energy security our allies need. The gas association was saying, right away, that we need to improve the regulatory environment to make it easier for projects to move forward. I think there were mixed messages sent on that, from various members of the Liberal cabinet, but no action on it. The Prime Minister said that there was no business case for these projects. Then European countries have gone and signed deals, and found sources of energy elsewhere. Canada still has such immense potential. Why would we not seize that opportunity to now expand the development of oil and gas, creating wealth here in Canada, and supplying our allies and partners with energy security? I know some members would say that the regulatory burdens that are imposed on energy companies are in service of the environment. However, if we look globally, if we look at the alternatives, we could see that that is not at all the case. In fact, in so many cases, in particular, gas exports from Canada, it could displace not only the conflict energy sources and save lives by reducing European dependence on Russia, but also the less environmentally friendly sources of energy. Some countries in Europe made the mistake of being reliant on Russian gas. Other countries in Europe are still using coal, because their response to the threat posed by the Putin regime has been to say that they do not want to be reliant on Russian gas so they will take whatever alternatives they have available to them, which may mean coal. Canadian energy exports, the fact that we are a free democracy exporting energy and that we could displace coal with Canadian gas, could be good for global security and good for the environment. However, that requires regulatory modernization. That requires a willingness to go much further than Bill S-6 has done, to have a greater level of ambition, in terms of what we could be as a country and what we could accomplish. That would require us to broaden the range of the kind of regulatory changes that we are prepared to make. I think this would be the right approach, and it is the one that Conservatives have been championing. In general, I will say, in terms of the gaps and the need for regulatory modernization, we have bureaucracy out of control in this country. We have a government that has massively expanded the public service, but at the same time has dramatically increased its spending on outside consultants. Go figure that one out. The government is spending more on the public service and substantially more on contracting out. One would expect that if it is spending more on the public service, it would contract out less, or if there was a smaller public service then it would contract out more. Aside from the sort of underlying arguments about contracting out or not, one would expect those things to be somewhat inversely proportional. However, the Liberal government is spending more on bureaucracy, is spending more on contracting out and, in the midst of all this, is not actually able to achieve any kind of labour peace. We have this strike, right in the midst of the time when Canadians are filing their taxes, so they cannot get answers. Talking about the regulatory burden, the red tape people face, it is hard enough trying to figure out how to file taxes, and then when we do not have the people there who are supposed to be available to answer questions, it underlines the impression that so many Canadians have, that everything is broken, that the government just is not working. Again, Bill S-6 does a little but it does not solve the fundamental problem. What is the alternative? What could we propose as an alternative in terms of regulatory modernization? We have seen that the previous Conservative government, and other Conservative parties around the world, have taken the one-for-one approach, that if a new regulation is brought in, an old regulation has to be repealed. That recognizes the fact that there are likely plenty of regulations out there that are outdated, that no longer apply. It creates an impetus for government to always be looking to repeal old regulations that are no longer necessary, if a particular minister or department wants to bring in a new regulation. This approach has been used successfully in the past and has created an impetus for government to go further when it comes to removing gatekeepers, streamlining processes and making this the kind of country where it is easy to invest and create jobs and opportunity. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: That was the best part of his speech. Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands enjoyed the pause, so I will take another drink and let him reflect on the things being said. I would never suggest there are very few Liberals here in the House to hear my speech, but I know many will be watching at home and some might be online as well. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I think your kids are asleep. Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the member suggests my kids might be asleep. If my kids have trouble sleeping, we usually find clips of the member for Kingston and the Islands and play them. It is true. Actually, that is the punishment. When the kids are misbehaving, we tell them, “If you don't stop fighting, you have to watch Mark Gerretsen's speech.” Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, pardon me. I apologize and withdraw that. What I meant to say—

2449 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/23 10:54:49 p.m.
Watch

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

26 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/3/23 10:55:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I meant to say that when my kids misbehave, I play speeches from the member for Kingston and the Islands as a punishment. I did not mean to say his name in this place. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: It sounds like a reward to me. Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, we will see about that. I want to return to one issue that has been in the news lately and is in another area where I would challenge the government to do more when it comes to modernizing processes. This is about how our institutions respond to the issue of foreign state-backed interference. Many Canadians are deeply concerned about foreign state-backed interference, as they should be. We are dealing with an instance here in the House where, as we found out, a member of the House of Commons had his family threatened by a foreign government, and those threats involved the actions of an accredited diplomat here in Canada. That diplomat continues to be an accredited diplomat, and the government has not dealt with this. The government did not, for a number of years, inform the member about these threats to his family. These are issues we are raising in question period and elsewhere. The Conservatives have been calling on the government to take action to expel diplomats involved in foreign interference in Canada, and to respond to a broad range of challenges associated with foreign interference, including to have a foreign agent registry and other such actions. When it comes to government structures and processes, one of the challenges we see is that various institutions are charged with keeping Canadians safe in various ways. It is not always clear for Canadian victims of foreign interference, or for institutions that feel they face these kinds of threats, where to engage or how to get support. What I have heard in conversations with those who have been victims of this kind of foreign state-backed interference is that very often they feel they get the runaround. They might go to the RCMP, they might go to the local police, they might go to CSIS or they might go to Foreign Affairs, and then they might be directed between different institutions. What we now have is a proposal from the government to create an office for foreign interference, or an office against foreign interference. In effect, the proposal from the government is to say it is going to put aside a few million dollars and create another office, which is ostensibly another institution dealing with a problem that has not been dealt with. I do not really blame these other institutions. The problem has often been political will. I suspect that in many cases, things have been brought to the attention of the government and the government has not been willing to take the appropriate action. That has led to a great deal of frustration on the part of some of these institutions. Clearly, we see a lot of frustration on the part of CSIS. On this point, the government needs to take a serious look not only at its own failures, but also at how to strengthen our institutions and strengthen our structures in terms of how we respond to these issues of foreign interference. It should make the kind of substantial legislative and other changes that are required to move us forward. Overall, Bill S-6 is better than nothing. I will be voting for it, but needless to say, the country is still piled in red tape, there are still far too many gatekeepers and there is still much more work required.

606 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/3/23 10:58:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, even though I am diametrically opposed to the vision he is proposing. It was a classic demonstration of neo-liberalism, which demonizes the state, regulations, public services, social programs, the social safety net and environmental protections and portrays them as barriers. It was reminiscent of old Regan- and Thatcher-era speeches. It is all about survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle. If we let the free market reign, all will be well, ladies and gentlemen. There is no reason to be concerned, capitalism will take care of everything. I would like to put a question to my colleague, who has some pretty serious delusions about the lack of regulations and protection for the poorest and our environment, for example. He said that his party does not want to increase taxes, but wants to cut them. If it will not seek additional money from big companies and billionaires, that means that public services will be cut. That means years of austerity and years of misery for people who are already suffering. My question is simple: If he does not go looking for more revenue and he cuts public services, what services will he take away from the public?

210 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/3/23 11:00:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the hon. member has completely mis-characterized my view. If he would indulge me for a moment, there is an important distinction between neo-liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives do not believe that capitalism is the solution to every problem. We believe there are many social problems that require other kinds of solutions, and that strong families, strong communities and resilient, virtuous individuals are much more important to the health and well-being of a society than the nature of its economic system. However, we do believe that capitalism has a much better record than the alternatives, including the alternatives the member champions, at creating wealth. Wealth provides us with some of the tools for solving other kinds of problems. If a society has more wealth, it can use that wealth to uplift the conditions of people, including the most vulnerable, in various ways and indeed to invest in social programs, but we cannot have strong, well-funded social programs if we do not have economic prosperity. That is why we have made the case that if we have a strong energy sector developing and using Canada's natural resources to create jobs, opportunity and wealth, we have more wealth available. Then we have a bigger pie to support the most vulnerable and ensure we have the resources to solve other problems. That does not even guarantee that those other problems get solved, but it means we have the resources to try to solve them. If we are trying to solve problems of poverty, mental health and other social challenges in a society lacking in prosperity, we have less money to invest in those things.

277 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

May/3/23 11:01:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

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

43 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/3/23 11:02:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, some of the memorable phrases from the Conservative leader would say it very well. We are interested in removing gatekeepers. We are interested in smaller government and bigger citizens. We are not talking about an individual's size. We are talking about citizens who are resilient and able to work within communities, within families and within local government structures to solve problems through their own genius and creativity. The Conservatives believe that in every individual is inherent dignity, responsibility and creativity, and that a government that gets out of the way and unleashes individual creativity is not only good for the economy but part of how we solve the social challenges we face. We must not only remove barriers for businesses but also remove barriers that prevent not-for-profits from moving forward. We talk a lot about removing red tape for business. I think we need to talk more about removing red tape for not-for-profit organizations. The member, who comes from an international development background, will know about some of the red tape that not-for-profit organizations face. We spent some time championing the need to reform direction and control regulations, for example. There are many areas where gatekeepers are not only impeding private sector for-profit development, but are also impeding good work that could be done by not-for-profit organizations. This is the vision the Conservatives are bringing forward. It emphasizes freedom and removing gatekeepers not simply because freedom is important in and of itself, but because removing the barriers the state puts in the way of individuals' or not-for-profit organizations' freedom is what unleashes creativity and allows us to solve problems together.

284 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 190