This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Tony Clement Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment enacts the Red Tape Reduction Act, which establishes controls on the amount of administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was wide ranging and occasionally touched on the subject of the bill.
I was particularly interested in the Arthur Porter questions, and although they may have been asked rhetorically, I thought I would answer them.
Yes, the person trusted by the Conservatives to take care of intelligence oversight is still in a Panamanian jail. Yes, he is still an officer of the Privy Council.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, that was an editorial interjection that I do not mind.
How is it, in God's name, that Arthur Porter could be a member of the Privy Council? How is it? However, of course one is used to hanging out with criminals, like Bruce Carson, a convicted felon.
Ladies and gentlemen back home should ask themselves how a convicted fraud artist could get past all the security checks to be the Prime Minister's inner adviser. The Prime Minister likes hanging out with crooks.
He appointed Patrick Brazeau, and there were red flags all over Patrick Brazeau when he was appointed. Everybody knew this was not going to end well. It was Kory Teneycke who said that all these partisan ankle-biters were attacking a great man like Patrick Brazeau. They loved Patrick Brazeau. They threw their arms around him. They used to get him out at all their fundraisers, and then suddenly he was toxic. With Mike Duffy it was the same thing.
Arthur Porter, of all people; he is in a Panamanian jail. He could actually still call up his buddy the Prime Minister to ask for a secret security briefing as a member of the Privy Council.
This is the kind of madhouse show that the Conservatives are running over there.
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know that the opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, finds that it now wants to be best friends to small business.
I have a note that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:
The federal government is showing tremendous leadership in implementing its ambitious red tape reforms.
I would like to hear from the member opposite about whether he agrees with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on the government's efforts in wrestling red tape to the ground.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that my colleagues have to redact so much of what their witnesses say.
The member should have actually read the full statement from Canadian Federation of Independent Business, about its concern about the hiring tax credit, which the New Democrats are supporting, and which it is not. If the member wants to stand up and promote a bill that is smaller than a fig leaf when it comes to economic credibility and economic defence, he may.
The real issue is that the federation agrees with New Democrats on the issue of the small business hiring tax credit. This is the issue at hand.
My hon. colleagues can stand up there and say whatever they want, but the fact is that they have bet the bank on the tar sands and they blew it. The Prime Minister made a promise that we were going to be this economic super power and he was going to force the pipelines through and cut all the environmental protection.
What did the government get out of that? It got zero, because when the law was not followed and when the proper regulations were not used, the government did not build trust. If there is no trust from members of the Canadian public, they will not allow these super projects. After eight long years of bluster, the Conservatives have blown it.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about small business and what is in the best interest of small business.
To highlight that fact, we did have the opportunity last fall to get engaged on different forms of tax credits. One of the issues that the Liberal Party espoused back then was the idea of the EI premium exemption, and I made reference to this earlier. It would have generated tens of thousands of jobs in all regions of our country.
It is something that is consistent with the fact that the Liberal Party has recognized the valuable role that small businesses play.
When we talk about the legislation we are looking at today, as has been pointed out, the small business community does recognize it has some value in terms of supporting it. Therefore, at least in part, we in the Liberal Party do see it as a relatively small step.
The government could have done a whole lot more. I cite the EI premium exemption as a minor example that would have had a much more profound and positive impact.
Why would the NDP support this bill in second reading and then, when it comes to third reading, oppose it, when in fact the small business community recognizes that there is some value to passing it?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct on one part of it. It is a typical Liberal plan to use the EI fund for any of its hijinks games.
The EI fund is an insurance fund. It belongs to the people who pay into it. It does not belong to the Liberals' smoke doctors in the backroom who are always trying to come up with some shiny bauble.
We looked at it, we brought it to committee, and we realized it was just a dumb idea.
It is not nearly as vicious, though, as the $57 billion that the Liberals took out of EI. They used the EI fund, they stripped it bare, and they called that an example of Paul Martin's great visionary economics. Now they want to come around with this idea that this was going to create tens of thousands of jobs. It is such a fiction, and it is an unfair fiction when in some parts of this country, seven out 10 people who pay into EI are not able to get their own insurance money back. The Liberal Party would take their insurance money, the money that they paid into EI, and use it for their schemes to promote the Liberal leader, the member for Papineau. That is unconscionable.
We will always stand up to defend the rights of people to have the money they put in. Just like their pension, just like their EI, these are things to be protected, not to be played with.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, with regard to red tape, the public service of Canada has basically indicated that when regulations need to be changed, it has the opportunity to change them. The format is already there. It is not about removing regulations from environment or removing them from health and safety. Those need to be protected.
However, when we are looking at red tape, I think it is extremely important to look at how the Conservatives have put so much red tape on the Building Canada fund that it is very difficult for small communities to access those funds.
I know the member has a lot of small communities in his constituency, just as there are in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, and I am sure that he could talk about the red tape that they have to go through to try to get a pittance of the money that is available.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent example of the sort of monkey funhouse mirror that we see with the Conservatives. From a distance, they say they are going to clear red tape and make government simpler, yet when people try to use government programs, they find that working their way through them is exceedingly complicated and arcane. The Building Canada fund is an excellent example. I remember working for the Algonquin Nation before I was elected, dealing with small hiring projects for young people, and the burden of following through every single week was actually not worth the value of the grant for hiring people, because we had to do so much reporting. Although these were fairly simple projects, this is a government obsession. The Conservatives are not making things simpler; they are actually making things harder.
We can ask any veteran how easy it was to access services when they were being turned away, or we can ask how easy it is for people to get a disability tax credit or benefit. It is a straightforward thing, and they are being turned away.
The Conservatives are very interested in what they believe is reducing red tape, so if it is Suncor, the Conservatives will strip all the rules that they need to get it through. However, if a veteran needs access or a single mother is looking to get basic support for her child, they will jump through hoop after hoop. When a municipality is filling out these forms, we hear about it all the time. That is the meaningless red tape that we should be targeting.
Some hon. members
Question.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
The question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
On division.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
I declare the motion carried on division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is the case that you can simply declare it on division if it is not the view of the House that it was on division and the House is not consenting to it.