Bill C-21 (Historical)

Red Tape Reduction Act

An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses

This enactment enacts the Red Tape Reduction Act, which establishes controls on the amount of administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Like me, she knows that this country has never had a social democratic government at the federal level. We have had that good fortune provincially, however. In Manitoba, for instance, the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses is 0%.

It is a balancing act. This government is a friend to big corporations, as were the previous Liberal governments. The wind of change needs to blow through to help small and medium-sized businesses and co-operatives at the federal level. We need to take another look at the system to ensure that there is true competition when it comes to federal procurement contracts. Unfortunately, it is always the same people who win. This government supports big corporate welfare. It is too bad, because the vast majority of jobs in this country are created by small and medium-sized businesses.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question.

We are well aware that the Conservatives boast about helping small businesses by eliminating this so-called red tape. However, they did not renew the hiring credit for small business.

What does my colleague think about the Conservative government's approach to this issue?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate. Is this what we expected from the Conservatives? The answer is yes. Does this surprise me? The answer is no. We proposed specific solutions to help small and medium-sized businesses. They were reasonable solutions, but they were rejected.

It is hard to understand. I know that there are members on the other side of the House who own small and medium-sized businesses. However, the government has eyes only for big corporations like SNC-Lavalin, the big oil companies and the big farming companies in western Canada. They are what the government cares about most. That means that the government is not prepared to help small and medium-sized businesses become more competitive.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North in his debut speech since noon today.

I do not think the irony will be lost on anyone that this bill would enable the government to craft a set of regulations about regulating regulations. With regard to the statute proposed in Bill C-21, everyone should be very clear there would be no statutory effect. The bill is about a policy. It affects a policy; it creates no statutory effect. I say that because subclause 8(1) of the bill clearly states:

No action or other proceeding may be brought against Her Majesty in right of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done, or for anything purported to be done or omitted to be done, under this Act.

It goes on to say in subclause 8(2):

No regulation is invalid by reason only of a failure to comply with this Act.

There is absolutely no enforcement mechanism. There are no teeth whatsoever behind this bill. What we are doing on the floor of the House of Commons on the very first day of the fall session is debating the creation of a policy, not a statute.

With that as the backdrop, let us talk about what this policy would do.

Its purpose is to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. We know that most regulations on the conduct of normal business will affect businesses, so this is a policy that would affect the regular practice of business. However, it goes beyond that. It would impact things that may not necessarily be front and centre or top of mind with us as parliamentarians.

It would affect the management of fisheries and the environment. It is not just the industry department, the finance department, or the Canada Revenue Agency that this measure would impact. We have to be very clear that it would impact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and how it regulates the inspection and regulation of food products. It would affect Health Canada with pharmaceutical products and other health products. It would affect the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as to how it manages our coastal and inland fisheries. It would affect a whole range of different departments. It would affect the Department of Natural Resources in the regulation of the mining sector.

With that said, this is a policy that is meant to reduce the number of regulations affecting all departments within the Government of Canada. It is not just the Canada Revenue Agency, the industry department, and a few of what would traditionally be viewed as the more business-oriented departments, because there is no department of the Government of Canada that does not impact the conduct of Canadian business across the board.

In responding to one of my questions, the hon. minister pointed out that 2,300 regulations have already been taken off the books since 2007. Most Canadians and certainly all parliamentarians should know that the catalogue of regulations in Canada is in the tens of thousands. Tomes and tomes of regulations exist.

The idea is to take down one regulation for every regulation that is brought in. It is basically about motivation, about trying to motivate government to do something about red tape.

Here is an equally effective strategy, and perhaps a better one: why not just cull the existing regulations? Here is where this bill falls a bit short. The committee that studies the bill really needs to dig into this aspect. The Government of Canada already has many volumes of regulations on the books, so the presumption of any reasonable and fair-minded Canadian would be that it is going to be tough on the government to bring in a new regulation because it will really have to scratch heads, think hard, and figure out what regulation it is going to eliminate.

We have many tomes of existing regulation that is redundant without being culled. The government could simply pick one and remove it. That would meet the policy requirements that it proposes to enact with this supposed legislation, with this statutory instrument.

That is the key here, so is this really more about a communications exercise? Is it somewhat of a smoke-and-mirrors game for the government to try to look like it is doing something when it really is not doing a whole lot?

Is there merit behind this concept? There is, absolutely. The government is proving that with its own former regulatory red tape commission. The commission took seven years to come up with all of this. It was seven years of bureaucracy, seven years of spending, seven years of studying, and this is what it came up with.

Yes, there is a lot of fat out there. There is a lot of fat in this government. There is a lot of fat that the Conservatives just did not bother to tackle. They have come up with this statutory policy that has no effect whatsoever in law, since there is no liability or consequence to the government for not following its own legislation. It is a bill that regulates regulation.

Here we are debating a policy on the floor of the House of Commons on the very first day that we are back for the fall session, and we have already come to the conclusion that it really does not do a whole lot.

What I also find kind of funny is that I did not want to see this bill in the budget implementation act because budget implementation acts should simply be about budgets, but when we consider all the stuff that went into the Conservative government's implementation act that had nothing to do with the well-being of businesses or the economy, an argument might be made that perhaps this particular legislation might have been able to be folded into the budget implementation act. I would not agree with it, because I think budget implementation acts should be strictly about budgets.

However, that said, this bill was read on the floor of the House of Commons on January 29 of this year. We have not heard a word about it since, and we have actually passed the budget. After seven years of spending on the red tape commission and adding to the bureaucracy, if one is trying to get a signal or cue as to whether or not this is more about a communications exercise to show that this legislation to regulate regulations is a good thing, one need not look any further than that. That is what this is all about today.

What would be the most effective answer in dealing with red tape and government regulations? It would be to go through them one by one and cull any one that does not really have meaning or value. That would be the best and cheapest option, and administratively it would be the simplest and most efficient one. Quite frankly, the government could do it if it wanted to, but now there is this elaborate exercise attached to all of it to posture and create reports and add to the bureaucracy.

Our caucus is looking forward to getting this bill into committee to study some of these issues.

Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, I will end with something that is very important to me. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages our coastal resources and all of our oceans almost exclusively through the use of regulation. If the government is suggesting that for every regulation it brings in it must reduce regulations by one, will government experts and outside experts be allowed into the committee room to analyze whether there might be unforeseen consequences that would actually reduce the ability of the government to do what is in the best interest of Canadians and our resources and our economy and whether this smoke-and-mirrors public relations exercise might actually cause a lot of harm?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the third party for his speech.

We have to admit that the Liberals were pretty good at using smoke and mirrors. Take for example the issue of climate change. The only practical measure that the Liberals took was to name a dog “Kyoto”. That is their track record.

I would like my colleague to explain the Liberals' decisions with regard to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. During their 13 years in office, the Liberals managed to dismantle the regulatory framework around rail safety by implementing safety management systems in the wake of the Mulroney Conservatives.

Given that the issue of Canadians' health and safety is addressed in the preamble rather than in the body of the bill, there are no real guarantees in this regard.

Can my Liberal colleague show that he is serious about the questions he is asking about this bill, given that his government did not have a very good track record during its 13 years in office?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the former fourth party made an interesting point. He signals clearly to the Canadian public, and specifically to the House, that if the NDP had its way, it would engage in a massive re-regulation exercise. This is a policy point that the NDP announced during its caucus meeting. It said that it would be announcing its platform in the coming weeks, if not sooner.

We look forward to hearing the NDP's position on exactly which federal entities, which federal agencies, which federal activities it would re-regulate in such a massive way.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member asked why we do not simply get rid of all these regulations. The Liberals contributed to the deregulation in Lac-Mégantic. That happened to us, in Quebec; it did not happen where he lives. That caused such a mess, with such serious consequences.

Regulations are often needed to ensure the safety and protection of the public. Deregulation and special treatment for certain companies can jeopardize public protection.

How does the member plan to get out of this quicksand? Can he tell us how he sees these things?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I take a certain amount of umbrage in the fact that the NDP is already telling us and Canadians that the Liberal Party of Canada is about to form the next government. When we were in that position, the member asked what we would do to certain policies, regulations and statutes. That is a pretty telltale sign of where the NDP is going.

This bill is about eliminating other regulations. What I heard from the New Democratic Party is that it is supporting this legislation. One minute those members are talking about a terrible thing being done, and we all agree there was a terrible tragedy, but they are pairing that with a regulatory system. They are saying that the regulatory system is the ultimate cause that we should be debating, but they are also saying that they support the legislation.

Does anyone else see the irony in all of this? Does anyone else see how ridiculous the New Democratic Party's positioning has been as it desperately tries to get itself out of the quicksand of its polling numbers of recent months?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I follow the Liberal Party critic. He has hit the nail head-on in addressing this issue.

It is important that we recognize that the current government, probably more than any other government, has its way of putting a Conservative spin on messaging. The member was right on when he made reference to the type of messaging that the government was hoping to achieve here. There is the bill, “red tape reduction act”, that they tie to small businesses, as if the government really wants to do something to assist small businesses in Canada.

All we have to do is look at the last six months or so to see the disaster the government has made for small businesses in one program, the temporary foreign worker program. We see the devastation that has caused. MPs from the Prairies would surely to goodness recognize the damage that has been caused to small businesses because of the government's inability and incompetence in administering one program. It is not a government that has been friendly to small businesses. It is a government that now says it wants to deal with reducing red tape. There is no doubt a great appetite from Canadians to see the reduction of bureaucracy. We all want to see red tape disappear where it can, so the Conservatives understand how important it is to appeal to that sector of society that loves to hear about reducing red tape.

We too believe there is some merit in reducing red tape. We do not necessarily need legislation to mandate the reduction of red tape, as the critic has pointed out. Why not go through a review of the many different thousands of regulations that are in place today and look at ways in which we can reduce red tape and regulation? There is no doubt that we can do a lot in reducing red tape, and we would encourage that where it is feasible to do so. We see that as a positive thing.

However, the Conservatives are saying they are going to reduce red tape, thereby helping small businesses. They are trying to make that connection so they can give the impression they are a friend to small businesses. There are numerous problems within the small business industry and we are not giving it the amount of attention it should receive to help small businesses grow and prosper.

At the end of the day, when we talk about job creation and the importance of the middle class and what we need to be doing in Ottawa to enable our middle class to grow and prosper and have hope again, we should talk, at least in part, about ways in which we can support small businesses. The small businesses, looking forward into the future, are part of the backbone to our Canadian economy. If we want to create and generate jobs, the greatest number of potential jobs that can be created is through our small businesses. We should be looking at what we are doing to help facilitate those job numbers. The government has not done well in private sector, small business types of jobs. It has been negligent on that particular file.

There is a great level of difficulty for small businesses, including everything from registering the name, to looking into setting up a facility, wherever it might be in the country, to registering with Revenue Canada or getting an understanding of employment insurance and the many different benefits that have be paid into.

There is so much more we could do to support our small businesses. Imagine a small business that employs three or four people trying to understand the bureaucracy and regulations. It is more than just federal regulations. There are provincial and municipal regulations as well. It is endless in terms of the types of things we need to see addressed to assist our small businesses to do what they do best, which is to deliver a service, to provide a product, or from my perspective, to create a job. Small businesses across Canada from coast to coast to coast create opportunities and valuable jobs. That should be the focus.

The idea behind this bill is that the government says if it brings in a regulation, it will take away a regulation. As the Liberal Party critic has suggested, there are thousands of pieces of regulations out there that if properly reviewed, could be dealt with.

However, there are other important things with which we should be dealing. What about the idea of closer regulatory alignments with the U.S. in certain areas? The international trade between Canada and the U.S. and the automobile industry is an example. There has been some success, but no doubt there could even be a great deal more, for example, regulating emissions from vehicles. The amount of trade between Canada and the U.S. related to automobiles, parts and so forth is immense. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Are there things we could do to improve upon and ensure there is a closer regulatory alignment? I would suggest there is.

We should put more attention in that area as opposed to introducing legislation that is fairly bland, as the critic has pointed out. There is no real teeth to it. It is more of a policy statement. In reality, it is more of a political stand that originated out of the Prime Minister's Office, which is more interested in trying to give a false impression that the government is sympathetic to small businesses. To give that impression, it says that it wants to reduce regulation.

We can reduce regulation and we do not necessarily need legislation to reduce that regulation. We want the government to recognize that we need to do more real, tangible things that would allow for our small businesses from coast to coast to coast the opportunity to grow.

If we see, through budgets, policy and legislation, things that would help or assist, then we would see valuable jobs being created and other economic opportunities and prosperity.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North will have one minute when the debate on the bill resumes.

The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had one minute remaining in his remarks, to be followed by questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, S.O. 31s are somewhat restrictive too, and I am sure that I could try to at least attempt to express concerns that our business communities and others have regarding red tape. The government has had an approach that at the best of times could be somewhat questionable in terms of dealing with red tape. There is no doubt a need for us to take a more holistic and comprehensive approach to the different ways we could dismiss a lot of red tape out there.

I recall talking about the amount of regulations that need to be addressed and taken off the books. We are talking about literally thousands in terms of regulations in place today that could be dealt with and that would reduce the amount of red tape.

There is no shortage of things that government could do to deal with the issue of red tape. Without necessarily knowing the specifics of the legislation, there is always room for improvement. The whole issue of red tape is an important issue, and government should always strive to do what it can to reduce the amount of red tape that is currently there.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this important piece of legislation for businesses and all Canadians. I would like to start with a bit of context to help us better understand the thinking that led to the introduction of this bill.

Briefly, this bill is a direct result of the feedback we received from small businesses that are so vital to the long-term success of our country. We are debating it today because back in budget 2010, we made a commitment to review federal regulations in areas where reform is most needed to reduce the compliance burden on businesses, especially small businesses, while safeguarding the health and safety of Canadians.

At the time the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated that businesses in Canada spend over $30 billion each year complying with regulations, so the government took action. In 2011, we created a Red Tape Reduction Commission, which was made up of both parliamentarians and private sector representatives. Its mandate was twofold. First, it was to identify irritants to businesses that stem from federal regulatory requirements that have a detrimental effect on growth, competitiveness, and innovation. Second, it was to recommend options that address these irritants and control and reduce the regulatory burden over the long term while ensuring that the environment and the health and safety of Canadians were not compromised in the process.

The commission held consultations across Canada to hear directly from the people who are most affected by red tape. This included in particular small business owners. There was also an online consultation to allow an even wider range of business people to provide their views. Overall, people expressed concern with the unchecked growth of regulation and the costs they impose on businesses, especially small businesses. Specifically, business owners also told the commission that a one-for-one rule was necessary to control how often the government turns to regulation to address issues within industry. Then, in January 2012, the commission released its report, complete with recommendations for reducing red tape and its effects on the business community.

It did not take long for the government to take action. A few months later, on April 1, 2012, the government put the one-for-one rule in place. This rule requires regulators to remove a regulation each time they introduce a new regulation that imposes an administrative burden on business. It has worked so well that we moved to enshrine this rule into law last January by introducing the red tape reduction act, which we are considering today.

There is no better time than the present to give the one-for-one rule the force of law. Canada has weathered the economic downturn relatively well and is well positioned for sustained economic growth. We have gone from having one of the highest marginal effective tax rates on business to having one of the lowest. In fact, we are one of the few countries in the world that can boast of having both low debt and declining taxes. As a result, Canada is internationally recognized as one of the best places in the world to do business.

In December 2012, Canada cracked the global top 10 with respect to corporate tax competitiveness, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. This past January, in Bloomberg's rankings of the best countries in the world for doing business in 2014, Canada placed second, just behind Hong Kong and ahead of the United States. All of this points to an economy that continues to perform well in the global economic environment.

However, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. If we are to continue to rank among the world's most successful nations, we have to keep that international confidence in Canada up. We are taking the right steps to do that. We are on track to balancing the budget, and we have continued to take measures to create a business climate that supports growth and job creation. At the same time, federal transfers to individuals, such as old age security and employment insurance, as well as major transfers to other levels of government, including those for social programs and health care, will continue to grow. We have also taken steps to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system to ensure that everyone pays his or her fair share.

We are also finding savings and efficiencies in the government's operations. At the same time, we are working to create an environment that is supportive of business. From 2008-09 through 2013-14, we delivered tax reductions totalling more than $60 billion to job-creating businesses. Among those measures is the reduction of the federal general corporate income tax rate to 15% in 2012, from more than 22% in 2007.

We have already taken steps to significantly improve Canada's tax competitiveness and business environment. Now, the steps that we are taking to reform the federal regulatory system are in line with these actions.

Canada needs a regulatory system that works, one that is not overly burdensome, one that does not hinder the ability of businesses to innovate and grow, and one that protects Canadians' health and welfare. The bill being considered today is part of a package of regulatory reforms designed to modernize our regulatory system. By giving the one-for-one rule the added muscle of legislation, Canada would have one of the most aggressive red tape reduction measures in the world. It would increase Canadian competitiveness; free businesses to innovate, grow and create jobs; and underscore Canada's reputation as one of the best places in the world in which to invest and do business.

Let me close by saying that the red tape reduction act is about bringing new discipline to how regulation works. It is about creating a more predictable environment for businesses, and it is about freeing Canadians and their companies to succeed.

Small businesses are the foundation of this country's economy. By removing unnecessary barriers to their success, we would be helping them focus their time and energy on seizing new opportunities for growth and job creation. This would contribute to building the prosperous future we want for Canada and our children.

I ask my hon. colleagues to support the bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time so that as many people as possible can speak to this bill, which, at this point in time, raises more questions than answers in my mind. I have a very hard time trusting the Conservative government on this issue, even though we may agree on a few fundamental points.

Bill C-21 was introduced by the President of the Treasury Board and has two key provisions. To begin, it will implement the one-for-one rule, in order to supposedly reduce the red tape that is hampering business growth and innovation.

This raises questions in my mind. It seems to me that a simple mathematical equation demonstrates that if we take one regulation away for every one we create—or one minus one—we get zero. We are back at square one, and nothing has improved. We have simply kept the situation from getting any worse. The rule is also based on the assumption that the two regulations are equal. A company will invest a different amount of time or financial resources, depending on the regulation. That is the first problem.

Second, this bill would make the President of the Treasury Board the ultimate arbiter when it comes to eliminating regulations; it would give him a monopoly on that. That is the second problem and also very typical of this government's bills, which seek to concentrate power in the hands of ministers. This is another great example of that.

This bill certainly has to be analyzed in committee because, even though we agree on some of its general principles, it needs amendments to correct its shortcomings, particularly with respect to the environment.

We also have to make sure that regulations protecting the health and safety of Quebeckers and Canadians are not gutted. We have to ensure that the health and safety of Canadians remain priorities in the debate on businesses' administrative burden.

Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial to our economy. There is no doubt that they are essential to the job creation process, especially in Quebec, but also across the country. In ridings like mine, we want to see small businesses become medium-sized businesses. They are the backbone of our economy.

Since we know how important small and medium-sized businesses are to economic recovery, we are of course ready to explore various options available to maximize their potential. Businesses could then focus on their two main objectives: growing their resources and creating jobs.

Now that we have laid out the general principles, let us take a closer look at the implications of this bill. Let us talk about the first original sin: from the bill's preamble to its provisions, the notion of environmental safety is simply absent from the spirit and the letter of the bill. The unbelievable way this bill was conceived sacrifices all environmental issues. If there is one subject on which all Canadians agree, it is the environment, and yet it is completely absent from the bill.

The Conservative approach is to allow industrial stakeholders to self-regulate. That formula has been used in the past and has led to catastrophes. Here once again, industrial stakeholders regulate their own activities without any public power looking at the risks those activities pose to the environment

Furthermore, health and safety are mentioned only in the bill's preamble, which leaves very little room in real terms for the importance that really should be placed on issues of health and safety.

Since my colleagues opposite went to the trouble of including the one-for-one rule, the question is this: why did they not allocate the resources needed to make sure there is legislation in place to also protect the health and safety of Canadians?

By all accounts, this bill embodies the Conservatives' thinking on the environment. They seem to think that environmental safety is an administrative burden that must be reduced, when environmental issues are directly related to the safety of citizens.

Our legitimate questions on the scope of this bill on health and safety will lead the NDP to propose robust amendments to ensure the long-term sustainability of regulations protecting the health, safety and environment of Canadians. The rules that are in the public's interest must be upheld. This is not a question of exerting theoretical control over the number of rules, but of determining which ones are truly useful for the public.

We must focus on tangible measures to help small business owners expand and beware of the illusions Bill C-21 might create. The critical question posed by this bill could be summed up in these terms: it is not enough to reduce red tape for SMEs in an effort to support their potential for growth and innovation. These claims have to translate into action and these reduction measures must be consistent with health and environmental safety criteria.

When it came to moving from words to action, the Conservatives refused to support the NDP motion on the regulation of credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants, for example. However, the lack of an ombudsman and non-existent regulation in this area are having a serious negative impact on the competitiveness of small businesses and constitute an extra administrative burden for these merchants.

With regard to safety standards, we need look no further than the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, which is still fresh in everyone's minds. This tragedy reminds us of the extreme consequences that drastic deregulation can have and the risk that such an approach poses to rail safety.

Furthermore, the Liberals, who are also very timid when it comes to regulation, reinforced the principle of deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement an approach allowing the industry to monitor the safety of its own operations instead of requiring the government to set standards that the industry has to meet.

That being said, the main focus of Bill C-21 is to implement a one-for-one rule. This approach, which was discussed by the Red Tape Reduction Commission, requires the government to eliminate a regulation every time it adopts a new one. Once again, I would like to remind hon. members that there is no evidence of any reductions in red tape.

However, the bill does not explicitly state that the regulations can apply to health and safety issues. In addition, the bill stipulates that the President of the Treasury Board has the power to calculate the cost of the administrative burden and determine how the law will apply to regulations changed when the one-for-one rule came into effect.

It is clear just how much bargaining power is being given to the President of the Treasury Board. In other words, he could be granted discretionary powers over regulations affecting safety, health and the environment. Centralizing regulating and deregulating powers in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board is, without a doubt, an unsound, undesirable way to manage the public service.

We are fully aware that we need to reduce red tape by offering balanced solutions to our entrepreneurs. However, we feel that this bill needs to be examined more closely in committee so that we can address its main weaknesses, including—and I have said this many times—the ability to protect the health and safety of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I will now answer questions.