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.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
January 26th, 2015 / 3:30 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario
Conservative
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
An hon. member
On division.
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.
It is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber to not only represent my department but also the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka. Our anniversary just came up for some of us. I am currently in my 10th year of representation at this point. I want to thank the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka for their confidence in me, but I want to talk about this legislation as well.
It is one of the first of its kind in the world. It will enshrine into law a rule that has been in place since April 2012 administratively in this government and it goes to our pledge to the people of Canada to continue to find ways to create new jobs, create growth, rebuild our economy, and create new opportunity. One of the ways we do that is by supporting small businesses in our communities and promoting small business growth throughout the country.
Our plan to reduce the administrative burden will of course help us achieve these objectives.
What would the bill do? Quite simply, when a new regulation that imposes an administrative burden is introduced, the law would require that another one be repealed. I think what we do is unprecedented in these kinds of operations around the world. Specifically, we monetize the value of the administrative burden and then declare that the monetary value be offset by other regulatory changes. I believe this enhances transparency and accountability. We further do so in an annual report that reports on the implementation.
However, it is important to note what the bill would not do. It would not compromise public health, public safety, or the efficient operation of the Canadian economy.
Some may ask why reducing red tape matters. Well, red tape gets in the way of jobs and growth and improving Canadians' lives. Complying with the information obligation of twelve of the most common federal, provincial, and municipal regulations in five sectors of the economy works out to a total cost of $1.1 billion per year for our small businesses. On average, the annual time per small business establishment to comply with legislative tax requirements was 15 hours, at an annual cost of $1,724 to these small businesses. This is a hidden tax that hits the little guy or gal hardest.
It is four years now since we launched the Red Tape Reduction Commission. We asked how red tape was killing jobs and we asked for recommendations on how to fix these problems. This commission went coast to coast. We had 15 round tables in 13 cities, with over 200 participants, along with online consultations and a dedicated website. We heard that Canadians needed one for one, and they needed what became known as the red tape reduction action plan.
We introduced this regulation as a pilot project in April 2012. It has reduced the administrative burden by $24 million and achieved a net reduction of 20 regulations.
To give an example, we changed the Corporations Returns Act to collect financial and ownership information on corporations doing business in Canada. Now only corporations with revenues of more than $200 million, assets of over $600 million, or foreign debt and equity over $1 million will have to report financial and ownership information. There are 32,000 businesses that will no longer be required to file this complex government return. This one change saves our small businesses $1.2 million per year.
Here is another example: Health Canada has reduced its red tape by amending regulations in order to allow regulated pharmacy technicians to oversee the transfer of prescriptions from one pharmacy to another, a task that was previously restricted to pharmacists. This enables pharmacists to focus more of their time on direct patient care and on running their business.
This initiative has cut red tape by $15 million a year.
We also changed amendments for Northwest Territories and Nunavut Mining Regulations. We have simplified the licensing, we have encouraged holders of mineral claims towards development, and we have modernized the tenure system in this regard, which has saved over $600,000. Examples of successes like these are going to save almost 100,000 hours of wading through red tape per year.
I should mention that I am here as the President of the Treasury Board. It is the Treasury Board that in fact enforces this rule, and we have indeed ensured compliance.
What are the next steps?
It is time to take this highly successful pilot project and enshrine it in law.
We committed to this, I should add, in our Speech to the Throne, and that is why the bill is here in the House.
What is the message that we are sending by supporting this bill? What are we saying about Canada? We are saying that Canada is open for business. We are saying that we are on the side of job creators, and we are saying that government is committed to protecting Canadian businesses and employees and to growing the economy.
I will read into the record, if I might, some commentary on this bill, starting with Laura Jones, who is the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She stated:
The federal government is showing tremendous leadership in implementing its ambitious red tape reforms. Wrestling with reducing red tape requires the ‘stick-to-itiveness’ and political leadership that we are seeing from Ottawa. It’s heartening that the messages that we are getting from the Prime Minister, [myself], and their colleagues that they are in this for the long haul.
Then there is Kevin Dancey, president and CEO of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, who stated:
We applaud the federal government's early accomplishments in reducing red tape barriers faced by Canadian entrepreneurs and business owners. The government's reiterated commitment to a sustained approach over the long-term is encouraging. A persistent approach is the remedy required to identify and develop solutions to effectively reduce the compliance burdens and associated costs faced by Canada's business community.
Also, there is Helen Long, president of the Canadian Health Food Association, who stated:
The government’s focus on the reduction of red tape has already made an important impact on our and many other industries.... CHFA and its members stand ready to support the government in its efforts to further reduce the red tape burden on Canadian business, and to allow them to focus on innovation and job creation instead of administration.
Finally, Carole Presseault, regulatory affairs, CGA Canada, stated:
These measures should give Canada’s small and medium businesses more time to focus on growth, innovation and job creation.
That is exactly the point. We want small businesses to focus on growth, jobs, and innovation in our economy.
I want to talk very briefly about the small business lens.
Introducing a small business lens to regulatory creation is part and parcel of this bill as well. Businesses that represent over 40% of Canada's private sector GDP and almost 50% of all jobs in the private sector have requested that when we look at regulation, we take the time to look at it from the point of view of the small business. How will the proposed regulation affect them and their ability to operate, innovate, and create new jobs?
Therefore, we have this is as part of the rules in our law as well. This will happen, this small business lens, when a regulatory change imposes over $1 million in annual nationwide costs and has an impact on at least one small business. That is the test.
Now, as a result, regulators will have to ask themselves if the information we are asking these small businesses for is already being collected by another government department. As a former small business owner myself, I can say that nothing drives one crazier than filling out a form in triplicate from one level of government or one government department and then, the next day, getting another form asking the same questions. We heard that from small businesses. I remember it well when I operated my own small business.
Therefore, we are demanding that regulators at Treasury Board know what is already being collected by another government department so that we do not have to overburden our small businesses, and we want this in the law if it is passed by this House.
Here is another question. Is there another way to regulate that would be less burdensome, rather than automatically saying, “We've got a problem.” We hear this all the time in Ottawa: “Folks, we've got a problem. We've got to solve a problem. How are we going to solve the problem?” The constant advice we get is, “Well, if we just pass this regulation, we would solve the problem.”
Maybe there is another way to solve the problem. Maybe there are other ways, if we use our noggins a bit, that we can solve the problem without overregulating our small businesses.
The third question is, are we communicating in plain language? I hear time and again from small businesses that understanding what government is asking of them is sometimes very difficult, so if there is going to be a burden, we want to let the burden be on the bureaucracy, on the regulators, to actually speak in plain language so that people can understand what they say.
This is part of a 20-point small business checklist that regulators would have to fill out and publish and have signed by the minister responsible as part of their package to Treasury Board before Treasury Board would consider whether this regulation was the right thing to do. Of course, this would mean greater transparency as well.
Very briefly, here are some other changes.
Service standards for 24 high-volume regulatory authorizations have been created, covering more than 60,000 transactions with businesses each year. There would be 32 departmental forward regulatory plans to let small businesses know what is coming around the corner. They would publish these forward plans so that small business has either the time to adapt or the time to react and say to government, “You know what? We understand what you're trying to do here. We agree that something has to be done, but maybe there's a better way to deal with it that doesn't involve, always, further regulating small businesses.”
Then there is the annual scorecard.
I released the first and second annual scorecard on the red tape reduction action plan so Canadians can see just how much progress we are making. The scorecard is independently vetted by a regulatory advisory committee.
In conclusion, let me put it this way: low taxes, less red tape, more growth, more prosperity, balanced budgets, safe streets and communities, and a belief that this is the best country in the world in which to live and in which to do business. That is our aspiration and that is our record, but we want to move forward as well.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians have a right to be asking themselves some pretty profound questions about whether or not the current government actually does want to reduce red tape.
First, we if look at the infrastructure program and the bureaucracy the government has created for municipalities and for businesses that the municipalities have to deal with, we see delays of up to 18 months right now just to deliver a project.
Second, with regard to employment insurance, the amount of red tape now that small- and medium-sized businesses have to deal with just to track employment insurance is ridiculous.
Therefore, we have to question whether there is truly a motive to change the red tape for small and medium-sized business. Perhaps more importantly, the President of the Treasury Board, the minister, is giving himself significant powers in order to gut health, safety, and environmental regulations and standards in this country, putting the future of Canadians in danger.
What does he say to Canadians who are worried that he will use his own noggin, his own judgment, when it comes to their safety and security and health?
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is very specific and we have operated this way over the last couple of years. Health and safety impacts are exempt from the one-for-one rule. That is to say that regulators who are fixing a problem that will then have a positive impact on the health and safety of Canadians are not required to find another regulation to offset that particular rule.
I am not standing here saying that, with a wave of a magic wand, every single regulation is going to be off the books. No, of course not. There is a need for regulation. Those hon. members would be the first ones to stand up in the House and complain if we did not have rules in place to ensure the accountability of tax dollars. Some of the rules that the member referred to are there to make sure that, when a tax dollar is spent, there is accountability for that. They would be the first ones to complain if we did not do that.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to meet with business people. Many of my colleagues within the Liberal caucus have spent time trying to assist businesses across Canada and get a better understanding of them. Let there be no doubt that there is a great deal of frustration with respect to the amount of administrative work necessary to deal with the red tape currently in place.
My question for the President of the Treasury Board is with respect to the lack of leadership from the government in terms of working with other levels of government and doing what they can, jointly, to reduce the red tape. Business people tell us that there is far too much paperwork, far too much regulation, and I am talking about small businesses in all regions of the country.
What is the minister doing to ensure that there is strong leadership and a sense of co-operation with all the stakeholders to reduce red tape?
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is important to work together with other levels and orders of government where we can. I have done that myself. We have worked with various provinces—for instance, British Columbia comes to mind first—and have explained our red tape reduction efforts. That is part of it as well. When regulators come before Treasury Board, we do require them to have a tour d’horizon of other regulatory impacts and say whether they have had those discussions as well.
This is an important aspect. I contend that we are doing that. I thank the hon. member for raising it in this place as well.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister and our government for taking the initiative on red tape reduction.
The minister mentioned that the amount of paperwork that companies are saddled with can often be very burdensome and prohibitive, and that is especially true for small and medium enterprises. A larger company can possibly afford to hire a full-time person to fill out the reams of paperwork, but a small company with 10, 12, or 15 employees has a much more difficult time getting to that task.
I wonder if the minister could highlight how this particular measure would benefit all companies, especially those small and medium enterprises that are responsible for 90% of the business in our country.
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga is quite right. We have tried to listen specifically to the small and medium-sized enterprises and their specific concerns when we had our round tables and our discussions. I continue those to this day when I do my pre-budget round tables across the country. This is one of the items upon which I always touch.
It is clear that small and medium-sized enterprises do not have the ability, many times, to specifically dedicate people to deal with regulation on a daily basis. We have heard that. Just through our administrative work prior to this legislation coming before the House, we have reduced about 100,000 hours of regulatory burden that small businesses face. That is a tangible number.
We also heard dozens of ideas from small businesses of specific regulations that have no impact on health or safety but perhaps had some meaning or purpose 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but those regulations now do not have that same purpose. We are working our way through their suggestions on how to make those regulations either disappear entirely or be less burdensome.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time on my feet giving a speech, I would like to wish all my constituents a happy new year.
Happy new year to all my constituents. 2015 will no doubt be a very interesting year, one that I am sure will mark a major change in Canadian politics when an NDP government takes power.
Obviously, no one can oppose virtue. However, this bill is far from virtuous. I want to be clear with Canadians. I believe—as does my party, of course—in the principle of red tape reduction, which will reduce administrative hassles for business people. However, this bill does not significantly reduce the burden on small and medium-sized businesses, since it does not address most of the regulations that are problematic for them, namely those pertaining to all of the paperwork associated with taxes. When I visit small and medium-sized businesses in my riding, most of them complain about all of the paperwork required, particularly by Revenue Canada.
It is difficult to believe that the Conservatives are sincere about wanting to eliminate red tape since they did the opposite with the Building Canada fund, for example. Instead of helping municipalities and SMEs start infrastructure projects in a timely manner, the Conservatives set up a long and cumbersome bureaucratic process for every project worth more than $100 million. That will create delays of up to 18 months that will slow down important projects in my riding and the ridings of my colleagues.
The Conservatives did the same thing with their so-called employment insurance reform, which requires employers to provide more and more information about their employees. What is more, small and medium-sized business are not really getting any help when it comes to training and information. Such assistance would help them figure out all of the paperwork and send the right forms to the right people. This government is not really supporting small and medium-sized businesses.
If we really want to help small and medium-sized businesses, we can do better than this bill. For example, the Conservatives are dragging their feet when it comes to taking serious action to regulate anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. That is another example of bureaucracy and red tape.
If the Conservatives really wanted to help SMEs, they would have supported the NDP's idea to have an ombudsman to control the credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants. That was a simple and reasonable solution, but it was rejected by this government.
No, this bill is not good enough. The principle is good, but it is unclear whether it will achieve the expected results. What small businesses really need is for us to identify what is wrong with the system and eliminate it. It would take a simple study. The one-for-one rule is too vague, and there is no guarantee that it is going to work.
We also have to stop giving lip service to small and medium-size businesses and actually help them out, either by restoring the small business hiring tax credit for young people; reducing taxes for small businesses specifically, not the corporate tax rate for the largest and most successful businesses in this country; cracking down on hidden credit card transaction fees; and perhaps redefining what a small and medium-size business actually is for the purposes of government procurement contracts. These are major, tangible differences. These are changes that can help SMEs.
I do not know if members realize this, but the government currently defines small and medium-size businesses as businesses with 500 or fewer employees.
In my riding, SMEs have on average 12 employees. It is completely unrealistic to expect a company with 25 employees to compete with a so-called small business with 499 employees. That makes absolutely no sense. The system is not designed to consider criteria such as profit margins or staffing numbers, for example.
We could debate the service agreements that merchants sign with credit card companies, which favour small-business owners by allowing them to pass the fees on to consumers, thereby increasing all prices. Even though the Competition Tribunal recently rejected a lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard, in a rare move, it did call for the creation of a regulatory framework for anti-competitive practices.
Furthermore, to help small and medium-sized businesses, we could also create a tax credit to help businesses that hire and train young people or give grants to help SMEs expand. We could make it easier to transfer a family business to the next generation, for example, create tax credits that would offset payroll taxes, help small business innovate, and so on. In agriculture, we could do something about venture capital and the high interest rate for new land purchases.
Clearly, unlike the government's symbolic one-for-one legislation to reduce red tape, our proposals are sensible, concrete, realistic measures that would actually help Canadian SMEs create jobs. However, as the official opposition's Treasury Board critic, I have other, more serious concerns regarding this bill.
As is often the case with the Conservatives' bills, because of their almost uncontrollable zeal for defending the free market as they understand it at all costs, I see that they have hidden in this bill their intent to eliminate regulations that protect my constituents' health and safety and the environment.
After the listeriosis crisis and the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we need to guarantee, more than the government is doing, that there will be more, not fewer, standards and regulations to protect Canadians' health and safety.
Regulations that are in the public interest should be kept. This bill puts them in jeopardy because it gives the President of the Treasury Board the power to eliminate them under the pretext of cutting red tape for businesses. This is definitely not the recipe for sound public administration.
We are not alone in thinking that. During the study of the bill, Chris Aylward of PSAC testified before the committee. He said:
If regulations are no longer deemed to be in the public interest after due consideration and consultation, the regulators have always had the ability to amend or delete them. In fact, they have done so on a regular basis... Not only is Bill C-21 unnecessary, it will not adequately protect Canadians... At worst it is a make-work project that will mean regulatory and enforcement officers will have to spend their valuable time within a context of shrinking resources aimlessly looking for regulations to cut.
Furthermore, Laura Jones, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated that:
It's always going to be challenging, you know, where that line is drawn, because to get a bit more safety sometimes can be very costly, and different people will draw that line in different places.
It is all still quite vague.
It is true that the NDP wants to reduce red tape for small businesses, but we cannot do that at the expense of Canadians' safety. We cannot trust the Conservatives, who are in the habit of deregulating without any regard for safety, health or the environment. Their harmful record on eroding regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment is quite clear.
For example, in 2013, the then Minister of Transport gave WestJet an exemption from the Canadian aviation regulations. WestJet planes can now operate with just one flight attendant for every 50 passengers, rather than the standard one flight attendant for every 40 passengers, as required by the regulations. Other airlines have since asked for similar exemptions. It is only natural. Where will this end? The NDP has asked that the rule of one flight attendant for every 40 passengers be upheld.
The Lac-Mégantic tragedy also put the important issue of rail safety in Canada back on the agenda, after decades of Liberal and Conservative deregulation. In 1999, the Liberals persisted with the deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach, which was adopted by the Mulroney Conservatives. This approach left it up to the industry to look after the safety of its own operations—in other words, self-regulation, which no longer works—instead of ensuring that the government worked with the industry to set safety standards. That would be perfectly reasonable.
In October 2013, the Conservatives used the budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, and those changes will gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. This will jeopardize the health and safety of workers.
The Liberals were no better. I would remind the House that the Lac-Mégantic tragedy called decades of Liberal regulations into question. In 1999, the Liberals continued with the deregulation begun by the Mulroney government. No, the Liberals are no more reliable when it comes to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. Does the Liberal leader really have the judgment needed to defend the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians? I seriously doubt it.
It is not simply a question of managing the number of regulations to please the richest companies in Canada, but rather of determining which ones are helping Canadians. Therefore it is important that we do our research and our homework as good public administrators. This is a reasonable way to address this issue.
It is ridiculous that only the bill's preamble clearly states that the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. We all know that the legislation that will govern these regulations has no preamble. No mention is made of the environment in the entire bill. If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically protect health and safety regulations from the application of the bill?
Why did they not support our amendments in that regard when studying this bill? The NDP moved 12 amendments; that is not a lot. They were robust amendments, and nine of them would have prevented the government from eliminating regulations that protect Canadians' health and safety, food safety, transportation safety, the safety management system and the environment. One amendment would have required the government to just consult with stakeholders before eliminating regulations. Another amendment laid out the reporting requirements and eliminated the Governor in Council's power to make new regulations for the report.
If the Conservatives are serious, why did they vote against all these amendments? The amendments are reasonable and truly reflect all the evidence we heard in committee. The Conservatives said that these amendments were redundant. That is absolutely not the case. It is obvious that giving the President of the Treasury Board more powers is not what is needed for sound public administration.
The NDP believes in common sense solutions to reduce red tape and the compliance costs for small businesses when they deal with the government. The NDP is always open to ways to help small businesses by eliminating unnecessary red tape and letting them focus on what they do best: growing their businesses and creating jobs. However, the best way of doing this is not the one-for-one rule. It is rigorous research and broad consultation with the business community to identify those bureaucratic demands that are really causing problems.
This bill is a poison pill. Bill C-21 gives the President of the Treasury Board too many arbitrary powers that will make him the arbiter of eliminating regulations that he deems unnecessary. If the Conservatives are really serious about the health and safety of Canadians, I hope they will answer during this debate why they will not explicitly exclude regulations that protect health and safety from the application of this bill and why they opposed the NDP amendments that did that very thing.
Government regulations to protect Canadians' health and safety and the environment should remain a priority of any government. We need more than the government's promises of a preamble. The NDP would like to prevent the government from eliminating the regulations that protect health, safety, food security, and workplace health and safety, and this is why we are opposing this bill.
We want to make sure that future generations are not affected by the deregulation this bill would cause. Our fellow citizens deserve to be protected, as well as our children and grandchildren. Also, any bill of this kind should include clear obligations in terms of accountability for how the government uses this legislation and for the stakeholders who are consulted before regulation is eliminated. However, the Conservatives voted against this accountability in committee. Regulations that are in the public interest should clearly be consulted on with the public.
It is a matter of good public administration. It is about protecting our children, keeping them healthy and safe, and protecting the beauty of their natural environment, while finding a way to eliminate red tape. As I said before, we can do this by conducting a study in partnership with the public service and our small and medium-sized businesses and by using our heads.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Happy new year, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleague, the Treasury Board critic, for his speech. He shed a lot of light on Bill C-21 and on the way the Conservatives are always claiming that they take care of small and medium-sized businesses when, in actual fact, those businesses have been completely misled by the Conservatives when it comes to measures that will allow them to grow and create jobs.
I would like my colleague to elaborate on the policies the Conservative government has implemented over the past few years. They are hindering Canada's economic growth and creating obstacles for small and medium-sized businesses. They are preventing these businesses and the middle class from making ends meet.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question, which got right to the point.
During the break, I visited some small and medium-sized businesses in my riding. I simply asked them what they thought of the one-for-one principle. They told me that it was still a theory and that they were wondering what would be eliminated and when, how the business owners would learn about it and how they would be directly affected.
However, when I spoke with them and presented some measures that the NDP would like to implement with respect to credit cards and EI reforms, these people understood how this connected directly to their everyday work. They would like to see the regulations spelled out clearly. It is a matter of education. The government will have to determine which regulations should be eliminated, and small and medium-sized businesses need to be clearly told, so that they know how to do their job. Furthermore, we need to ensure that they do what they need to do to ensure that their communities continue to be safe and healthy.
Djaouida Sellah NDP Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to wish you and all of my colleagues in the House a happy new year. I would also like to say that I was very pleased to hear the speech by my colleague, the critic for this portfolio.
As the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I have had the distinct pleasure of visiting small and medium-sized businesses in my riding twice, and it is exactly as my colleague described. These small and medium-sized businesses need real measures that will make a difference to them and how they operate. I asked one small business owner what he wanted from the federal government. He said that nothing happening in the House was of any interest to him because he feels like a tax collector for the federal government these days.
I also had the opportunity to meet someone who owns a little supermarket. He runs it together with his family and some employees. He told me that he has had it with all the paperwork that makes their lives such a pain because he has to ask his spouse, who is supposed to be there to work in the store, to take care of the paperwork. Those are real situations that we observed on the ground.
The bill before us today, Bill C-21, is just smoke and mirrors as far as small and medium-sized businesses are concerned. As my colleague pointed out, we know that the average small or medium-sized business does not have more than 20 to 25 employees. That may even be true of most of them. As a result, this bill will not affect everyone. Unfortunately, this is one of the Conservative government's usual tactics for pleasing its electoral base.
I would like my colleague to say more about the measures in this bill in terms of their real impact on people on the ground.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend for her question and her comments. She seems to have her finger on the pulse of her riding and its small and medium-sized businesses.
It is no different in my riding. Small and medium-sized business owners usually tell me that tax returns are the hardest part, considering all the paperwork they have to submit. Tax returns are a lot more complicated for businesses than they are for individuals
This bill does nothing to make tax returns easier. People are wondering what the point of it is. What does it do to help most small and medium-sized businesses in this country, which, incidentally, employ the majority of Canadians? Helping such businesses is absolutely crucial.
This bill is really nothing but spin. All it does is send a vague message to the small and medium-sized business community that the government is thinking of them.
When the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business appeared before our committee, I expected her to be very excited about this bill. I thought that the Conservatives must have done their homework and consulted that organization. She simply told the committee that the bill was not bad. Is it even needed? It seemed to me that the spin had not really worked.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I was interested in some of the comments that my friend and colleague made about the bill. It sounded as though he may think that the one-for-one idea is a bit of a gimmick as it relates to the current government's commitment to actually removing red tape, especially in light of the fact that I hear from small- and medium-sized businesses that they are frustrated to the nth degree when it comes to dealing with issues like eligibility on employment insurance forms, for example, and all of those issues. The government keeps piling on these requirements and does not seem to be worried about red tape.
As well, there was the point the member brought up on the infrastructure program. Municipalities have to jump through hoops that are delaying the moving of money out of government offices by upwards of 18 months now, I think he said. It is incredible, frankly.
I would like to ask the member to expand on what I think is his conclusion, which is that the bill and this one-for-one business are simply nothing more than a gimmick.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is very pertinent and it goes directly to the heart of the matter.
If we really wanted to help small and medium-sized businesses in this country, the first thing we would do is lay out all of the legislation and regulations that we have, determine whether they are redundant or are actually doing what they should, consult with the business community, and identify those that are the biggest problem.
When we talk to small and medium-sized businesses in our ridings, two things come up the most: human resources and the process of hiring somebody and the red tape surrounding that, and second, the red tape involved in paying taxes. Neither of these issues is addressed in the bill. This is why it is clear that it is a gimmick.
Small and medium-sized businesses do not know how the bill would positively affect them, and I do not blame them for wondering.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Health.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-21. It is a significant piece of legislation. A strong statement is being made, and maybe a certain expectation is being built up by the government.
I must say at the get-go that the government has not been very successful at meeting the expectations of Canadians, specifically small businesses, with respect to the government's getting rid of unnecessary red tape.
The member referred to the idea of having those regulations in front of us. We would need an exceptionally large table, because we are talking about literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that we would ultimately have to review, and that is just federal regulations. That does not mention provincial regulations and municipal regulations, all of which have a very significant impact on each and every one of us, in particular with a special focus on small businesses.
Within the Liberal Party, we have recognized that the potential growth, the potential valuable jobs into the future, will be provided by our small business sector. It is the mid-sized businesses that will be providing the hope into the future in terms of those valuable, important jobs that will feed our middle class and ensure that the Canadian economy continues to move forward or improves from where the Conservative Party has it today.
Bureaucracy and the public service as a whole, our civil servants, have done a phenomenal job in working with the regulations we currently have in place and ensuring that those regulations are being followed. It is our job to do what we can to try to minimize the regulations and at the same time make sure there is a strong sense of efficiency.
No one would question, at least within the Liberal Party, the need for strong regulations dealing with issues of safety, health care, food safety, and so forth. We have asked plenty of questions related to all three of those. In fact, earlier today, we were debating Bill C-46, which deals with pipeline safety. I had the opportunity to pose a question in regard to that issue.
Canadians recognize that regulations are not an option, but an absolute necessity. They provide a service that complements legislation and ensures that there are certain standards throughout our country to protect us. Whether it is health care, environmental safety, ensuring our pipelines are built satisfactorily, ensuring there are fines where they are appropriate, or ensuring that good quality product is produced and manufactured, and the whole nine yards, there is absolutely no doubt that regulations are of critical importance.
Having said that, I think it bears repeating, because I have heard many members from all sides of the House talk about regulations that are somewhat dated. There are a great number of regulations currently in place that are just not necessary.
Reviewing should not happen every four or five years but happen internally, virtually on an ongoing basis, at the micro end. We should look at regulations that could be deemed dated or no longer necessary and look at ways in which we can improve the system.
There was an interesting report done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It was suggested in the report that the cost of regulations to Canadian businesses was estimated in 2012 at $31 billion. That is a phenomenal cost. Obviously, a good part of that cost is necessary, but let me suggest that there is great room for improvement. When we look at it from a party's perspective, if we can identify ways in which we can improve the system and ensure that there is more efficiency, we can help small and medium-sized businesses.
By doing that, we would be helping the Canadian economy. We would be creating jobs, and possibly even raises in certain sectors. If small business owners were able to save money on some of that administrative work that they have to do every week, that money could be turned into a cost reduction of a consumer product or consumer service. It could be used as an increase in pay for the workers, which is something that I personally would highly recommend. There is so much more that can be done if we are successful at reducing the paperwork.
I would suggest that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been fairly consistent over the years. I am relatively new to Ottawa, having been here for just over four years now, but I have been a parliamentarian for 20-plus years. When I have had the opportunity to meet with members of those stakeholder umbrella groups, they have consistently said that there is a need to improve and get rid of red tape and make our system more efficient.
Even in the NDP-administered government in the province of Manitoba, there is a great deal of room for improvement. However, there is also room for improvement at the municipal level, and obviously there is room for a great deal of improvement here in Ottawa. That is why I posed the question for the minister responsible for Treasury Board about how he, as the President of the Treasury Board, along with his department, is trying to work with other levels of government to deal with the issue of administration costs, and what our expectations jointly are for small and medium-sized businesses in Canada.
I have been disappointed, in the sense that there does not seem to be any holistic approach to dealing with business people in particular. I do not say that lightly. I hear members talking about meeting with business people and what the business people have to say. Like them, for me it is something that is ongoing. I am constantly talking with entrepreneurs, almost on a weekly basis, and dealing with a wide variety of issues. One of the issues that comes up time and again is the issue of red tape, administration costs, and things of that nature. I truly believe that there are businesses that are no longer in existence because of the paperwork that was required to be in business.
Let us look at what it takes in order to even start a business these days. It is no easy task, whether it is having to register and fill out all the necessary paperwork for a name for one's business or whether it is meeting the requirements for an occupancy permit and everything that is involved in regard to that.
Often business people refer to the federal government as a collection agency for the government. Whether it is the collection of the provincial sales tax, which sadly is going up in Manitoba, or the GST, or employment insurance or pension benefits, all of these are very important, but look at the pieces of paper involved. How often do we find a great deal of repetition in all of it? Is it the most efficient way of dealing with and supporting our small and medium-sized businesses, along with others?
There is room for great improvement. We have lost jobs in Canada. We are not talking about dozens or even hundreds. We are talking about thousands of jobs. Why? It is not because of the entrepreneur's idea, desire and possible dream to own a business and employ Canadians. It is because of the overwhelming amount of paperwork. That is what it feels like to many small business owners in particular.
My gut feeling is the government has sensed that in our communities and that is why it has come up with Bill C-21. It is hard to oppose the bill, given it is making a statement in the general direction of reducing unnecessary regulations. However, I think it has a lot more to do with the government wanting to give an impression that it is sympathetic to what individuals and businesses are saying, which is they are quickly becoming overwhelmed with the amount of paperwork and duplication. The government could have done a great deal more in addressing this very important issue.
The government has brought in trade agreements. We in the Liberal Party have been very supportive. We understand the real value of trade. We are not scared of trade agreements for the simple reason we recognize Canada is a trading nation and in the long run it is in our best interest to develop, promote and encourage trade agreements. We differ from our New Democratic friends who tend to oppose free trade for rather bizarre reasons, but they have their own rationale and justification.
When we talk about trade, what are we really encouraging? The exporting and importing of goods. Canadian jobs are very dependent on that. Consumers benefit immensely from it.
To what degree has the government been able to deal with some of the barriers of regulations of trade? I believe there is a lot of room for improvement. I have had discussions with individuals who get exceptionally frustrated because their product is being held at the border waiting to get paperwork through, or there are issues surrounding tariffs, or what should be deemed what. There are a great number of complications. The bottom line is that it causes delays and those delays have significant impacts on our communities in all regions of our country.
At times, the government seems to move in a general direction in certain areas, which we can support. However, more often than we would like to see, it is caught falling short on the important issues that affect us all, and we should be giving those issues more attention. That is why I posed the question for the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the issue of leadership. To what degree has the treasury minister or any other minister worked with the different levels of government?
Members should put themselves in the shoes of individuals who want to open a small business such as selling widgets, or a restaurant or whatever it might be. They do not necessarily care what level of government is causing the issues related to the amount of paperwork. They understand that there is a certain amount of paperwork involved in owning a business. I think where they are less sympathetic is when the government as a whole does not respond to what they feel are overwhelming situations at times, where there is just too much being asked of them, especially when in certain situations they do not have the financial means to meet those requirements without substantial cost. Quite often family business members are making less than minimum wage in order to sustain the business.
The government needs to be more sympathetic. Therefore, when I posed the question for the President of the Treasury Board, I was hoping the minister would tell me that the government was proactively working with other levels of government, while at the same time reviewing its regulations to see what it could do to better enhance the overall efficiency in the bureaucracy or in the filling of forms. How wonderful it would be to have a portal on the Internet which would assist our small businesses more directly and efficiently. We will need more co-operation and collaboration among our partners of Confederation to make that happen. It is an admirable goal. It means we have to work with others. We in the Liberal caucus are not scared to work to make a difference.
As my time is quickly running out, I will conclude where I started, by emphasizing just how important our small and medium-size businesses are to our economy and to our social and economic fabric.
I believe we could be doing so much more. Regulations is just one aspect of it but it is an important one. We recognize the great deal of frustration. If we take a more proactive approach in dealing with some of those frustrations, at the end of the day we will see more successful businesses. With that success, we will witness more employment, better pricing for consumers and better wages, which is one of my personal favourites.
I want to stress how important regulations are with respect to the issues of safety and health. We need to stay on top of this and that is why we are here.
As an example, today the government brought forward the bill on the pipeline safety act. It is important that we hold the government accountable when it is about to make significant changes to the regulations.
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, reducing red tape is a complex issue. The idea that a simple solution can fix a complex problem is a recurring theme in this Conservative government. Often it does not work. The simple solution is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It does not fix a complex problem.
The one-for-one rule, in what the government is proposing, is a perfect example of a solution that mathematically equals nothing. One for one equals zero. It is quite something to come up with a solution that equals nothing. I have an example to illustrate how complex this can be. The tax program whereby SMEs can get an innovation tax credit is falling apart. People in SMEs tell us that there is no additional red tape and there are no new forms. The problem instead has to do with the number of documents that need to be attached and the number of times they have to contact federal officials. SME owners say that it can cost them up to 35% of the tax credit to administer all this. This is not just about red tape. It is much more complex than that.
I would like to point out to my colleague from Winnipeg North that a real NDP administration will tackle the SMEs' red tape problem. It will address this complex problem and will have the advantage of being able to consult our leader, who has almost 30 years' experience in public service. He understands these complex problems. When we present complex but effective solutions, he will know what solutions to implement in order to move things along.
What worries me about the Liberals is that the leader has no experience whatsoever in such matters. It will be very difficult to come up with complex solutions with a leader who has had practically no management experience in his entire career. I would like to know whether my colleague has some thoughts about this rather blatant problem with the Liberals.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I believe the member has overvalued his leader's experience. As best I can tell, the leader of the New Democratic Party is in desperate need of stronger leadership skills in order to deal with many of the complex issues.
At the end of the day, it is about working with Canadians.
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
You've got to be kidding. You need a leader with some depth.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I see they are a little antsy on that. The truth hurts. I can appreciate the member's spin lines. He has some spin lines and he should stick with them.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Order, please. It is the first day back. I did not hear anything unparliamentary, but it seems to have provoked some disorder in the House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North can continue with his response and then we will go to questions and comments.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on the leader of the official opposition at least for now.
When we look at the legislation before us, one of the priority areas, for example, would be to look at how we might provide better services. That can be done by looking at target processing times, for instance. If we want to go beyond the rhetoric of red tape, there are some tangible things we could be doing that would actually make a difference. I cited a couple of them during my comments. If there is strong leadership that is prepared to work with others, as the leader of my party has clearly demonstrated by working with the premiers, we can make a difference. By co-operating, working with others and bringing in initiatives that will support small businesses, we would be creating more jobs in Canada.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, since the mid-1990s, and even since the Liberals were in power, there has been an increase in the deregulation of rail and air transportation. The Conservatives have also undermined environmental protections. Bill C-21 seems to be just another exercise in deregulation, which was initiated by previous federal governments.
I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to talk about the dangers of eliminating regulations that protect Canadians' health and safety and the environment. The Conservatives claim that Bill C-21 will help reduce the administrative burden of SMEs. However, does this not appear to be just another step in the process of deregulation initiated by the Liberals?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, she seems to be of the opinion that there is no room for deregulation, meaning looking at regulations that might be somewhat dated and useless and getting rid of them.
I would disagree with the member. I believe that there are many regulations that need to be gotten rid of. I suspect that if the member canvassed some of her caucus colleagues, she would find that even some of her own caucus colleagues would agree with that statement. Having said that, I emphasized in my comments just how important regulations are in our society. What I emphasized was health care. I emphasized safety. I even talked about the environment. These are all important. That is one of the reasons we have regulations.
I can assure the member and viewers that regulations are a priority for the Liberal Party. We are concerned, and we are going to make sure that there are strong practical regulations to ensure that there is safety in health care and for issues dealing with the environment.
Regulations are necessary. Where we disagree is that some regulations on the books today are somewhat redundant, and we believe it is best to get rid of them to try to make our system more efficient.
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Winnipeg North misunderstood. He simplified the whole thing by saying that his party will work with others because of his leadership. That is not the problem. When other people come to work with us, they must have the experience required to understand complex solutions.
The deregulation of the railroad, most of which was done by the Liberals, contributed to the current state of affairs and led to a number of disasters. We need to find more complex and intelligent solutions. We need to keep the regulations in place while simplifying the way in which they are administered. If I am given the mandate to find solutions and I can consult someone with a great deal of experience, that will help. However, the Liberals cannot say the same.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as someone who has 24 or 25 years of parliamentary experience and who has been in a provincial legislature that deals with the administration of many different areas, including health and safety, I like to think I have plenty of experience.
That does not necessarily mean that because of that specific experience I am the best person for the job. Quite often it is the individuals we work with who empower us to make the decisions necessary to get the job done. That is what we should be trying to achieve.
I have seen some pretty questionable characters who had plenty of years of experience. Just because they had the experience does not mean they were the best. Someone could have a lot of experience but be worth very little.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka for his insightful comments earlier on the importance of Bill C-21. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the House for allowing me to rise today to speak to why I think it is important to support Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.
As members know, Bill C-21 is an important piece of legislation when it comes to how the government relates to and engages with one of the drivers of Canada's economy, which is small business.
As one of the members of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I feel privileged to rise to speak to this issue today. One of the key drivers of the commission was that helping businesses succeed in Canada requires doing all we can as a government to decrease the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. Bill C-21 represents a strong step toward accomplishing this goal for many reasons.
In my time today, I would like to focus on one of those reasons in terms of the importance of enshrining into law the government's one-for-one rule. This rule, which has been in effect since April 1, 2012, has already proven to be effective in controlling and even reducing red tape regulations that hurt small business. It works by placing strict controls on the growth of regulatory red tape for businesses by applying a very simple principle: for every new regulation that is added that imposes an administrative burden on businesses, one must be removed. In addition, regulators must offset any increase in the administrative burden as a result of regulatory changes with equal reductions in existing regulations.
Canada is one of the first countries in the world to give the one-for-one rule the added muscle of legislation, making it the most aggressive red tape regulation in the world. What is more, we know that it works. The one-for-one rule has already proven successful in system-wide controls and regulatory red tape that impact businesses. Specifically, as of June 14, 2014, it has resulted in a net annual reduction of over $22 million in the administrative burden imposed on businesses, estimated annual savings of 290,000 hours in time spent dealing with regulatory red tape, and a net reduction of 19 federal regulations taken off the books.
By giving the one-for-one rule the added muscle of legislation, this Conservative government has clearly demonstrated just how committed it is to reducing unnecessary regulations for businesses. We know that time spent navigating red tape is valuable time that small-business owners could otherwise use to grow their operations and create jobs.
When I speak about red tape, I am referring to the unnecessary and undue compliance burden placed on small businesses. A compliance burden is exactly the time and resources spent by businesses to demonstrate compliance with federal government regulations. It can include planning, collecting, processing, and reporting information; completing forms and retaining data required by governments; inspection costs; and time wasted waiting for regulatory decisions and feedback.
There are many areas of Canada's economy that benefit from discreet regulation, like safe food, air space control, workplace health and safety, and so on. However, every regulation that requires paperwork, equipment, or training imposes compliance costs on a business. At some point, regulations get into diminishing return territory when the cost, time, and effort required to comply with the regulations outweigh the benefits conferred by the regulation.
Our Conservative government recognizes this red tape problem, and through measures like the one-for-one rule, it is taking measures to curb it.
A couple of years ago, I participated in the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which consulted a wide cross-section of Canadians for ideas on reducing the onerous administrative overhead for Canadian businesses. What I heard was the feedback of hard-working small-business owners who were absolutely fed up with over-regulation, tedious paperwork, and valuable time wasted.
This past week, I stood proudly by our Prime Minister, fellow members of Parliament, and the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, Laura Jones, in the Niagara region. Through talking to and hearing the stories of small businesses within my riding as well as Canadian small-business representatives like Ms. Jones of the CFIB, one thing becomes immediately clear: red tape heavily limits the ability of small businesses to grow.
I would add that the CFIB had Red Tape Awareness Week last week, from January 19-23. This is actually very good timing as we introduce this legislation. I would also mention that I had a chance to work with Ms. Jones on the red tape reduction round table, and it was a great experience.
To put it in the words of our Prime Minister, red tape and administrative burdens all represent “a silent killer of jobs” in this country. Although Canada has been recognized by the OECD as having a sophisticated and mature regulatory system that continues to maintain high levels of health, safety, security, and environmental protection, the OECD has also recommended that reducing undue regulatory costs would help to improve Canada's economic performance.
Let me be clear. Applying the one-for-one rule and giving it the legislative shape it requires to fulfill its mandate does not in any way compromise the presence of important health and safety regulations. Put simply, we are not repealing health and safety standards. We are making it less of an administrative nuisance to comply with them.
Canadians can count on this government and its regulatory system to uphold the public trust and to continually enforce the health and safety standards that protect everyday Canadians.
One of the aspects of the red tape reduction plan I am most proud of is the level of public consultation and transparency that informed its approach. As a government, we listened to the advice provided by small-business owners from across the country, and we reflected very carefully on that advice.
We understand the necessity of enforcing regulations that maintain Canada's high standards for safety and protection. We believe that regulations can and should co-exist with freeing businesses from unnecessary, costly, and time-consuming red tape.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that reducing regulatory red tape was one of the commitments we made to Canadians in October 2012, when we first announced the red tape reduction action plan. This plan is one of the most aggressive in the world today for reducing red tape, and with its implementation, Canada is bringing a new level of discipline to how we regulate and create a more predictable environment for businesses.
I would like to update members on the progress we have made in this important effort. In all, the red tape reduction plan introduced six system-wide reforms to the federal regulatory system to limit regulatory creep and to free up small businesses to focus on what they do best, which is to grow and create jobs.
This plan has helped businesses meet challenges in the areas of payroll, labour, and trade. It has further introduced time-saving measures, such as single windows and electronic submissions.
We have made substantial progress in implementing the reforms outlined in the plan. As well as the one-for-one rule, a number of other reforms are advancing well. For example, federal regulators have stepped up efforts to ensure that new and existing service standards are publicly posted, making the approval process for complying with regulations more transparent for business. In addition, departments have posted 40 forward regulatory plans on their websites, providing early notice of upcoming regulations so that stakeholders can provide input and prepare for their implementation.
All of these initiatives are proving their value and are further demonstrating this government's commitment to a transparent and safe system for business growth that is not weighed down by unnecessary red tape.
We have also saved small businesses in Canada $75 million annually through the application of the small business lens.
In the fall of 2014, the government published the administrative burden baseline, a key commitment of the action plan that clearly tracks the total number of requirements that impose administrative burdens on businesses.
Finally, we have also put into place a regulatory advisory committee. This committee's main task is to provide the President of the Treasury Board with advice on the fairness and reliability of the government's annual scorecard report.
We recently published our second score card report during Red Tape Awareness Week. It shows that we continue to eliminate unnecessary rules and costs that have been a source of frustration for Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs across the country, while maintaining high standards for the protection of the health and safety of our citizens.
The bottom line is that this report confirms that we have made tangible progress in cutting red tape for Canadians and businesses.
Let me now turn to a few examples of how departments are putting the red tape action plan into action. There are numerous examples. I am thinking of the launch of buyandsell.gc.ca at Public Works and Government Services Canada and the modernization of food safety regulations through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Safe Food for Canadians Act.
There is also the launch by Canada Revenue Agency of the new online mail service for Canadian small businesses. The service allows businesses to communicate with CRA online, helping streamline their interactions with the agency.
CRA also launched My Business Account, the online enquiry service where business people or their representatives can ask the agency tax-related questions about their accounts online and receive answers online. I know one of the things we heard over and over again was the frustration of business people to call and not be able to get anything actually in writing. That made it difficult for them when they called someone, were bounced around, and went to different people. This is a very direct response to what we heard in talking to small business people.
As well, CRA introduced a one-stop web page for businesses, allowing them to easily find information and service options relevant to their tax situation.
In addition, Statistics Canada has improved communication with survey respondents to better explain the purpose of business surveys. The changes include redesigning printed material and improving a section of its website.
These are just a few of the many departmental actions that are under way to reduce red tape. The one-for-one rule and other red tape reforms demonstrate our resolve to improve Canada's regulatory system and help businesses focus their energies on seizing new opportunities. They are part of the broader commitment to ensuring Canada is playing its A game when it comes to creating the right environment in which businesses can grow and create jobs.
Bill C-21 is smart legislation that would help Canadian businesses become more productive and succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. The red tape reduction act would require that regulators take seriously the requirement to control the amount of red tape imposed upon businesses, and the related costs. The legislation is also designed to be tough. It would challenge regulators to think through how regulations could be designed and implemented in ways that would not impose unnecessary red tape on businesses. While it would be tough, it would nevertheless offer a great deal of flexibility. The government's commitment to maintaining Canada's high standards for health and safety is unwavering and will not come at the cost of helping small businesses succeed.
The legislation would also be timely. As members know, one of the government's top priorities is creating a climate in which businesses can innovate, invest in the future, and create economic growth and jobs. That is why, despite what is happening in the global economy today, Canada has and continues to post one of the strongest job creation records in the G7, with more than 1.2 million jobs created since July 2009.
I would add that over 85% of those jobs created since July 2009 are full-time positions and almost two-thirds are in high-wage industries.
Looking ahead, this government believes Canada is positioned for sustained economic growth. We are one of the few countries that can boast of having both declining taxes and low debt. Our government remains committed to eliminating the deficit. This would ensure we continue to create a business climate here in Canada that invites investment, prosperity, and growth. Canadian businesses have to be playing at the top of their game to succeed and to compete in a global economy. This is especially true in uncertain times, such as those we have faced since the 2008 global recession. By reducing debt, we could free up tax dollars that would otherwise be absorbed by interest costs. We could then reinvest that money into things that matter to Canadians, such as health care, public services, or lower taxes. I would add that reducing debt would also strengthen the country's ability to respond to economic shocks, such as global financial crises.
It is worth remembering that, when the hard times arrived in 2008, Canada was in a position of economic strength compared to our international partners. This allowed us to put in place one of the most comprehensive stimulus packages in the world. At the time, international observers such as the International Monetary Fund were predicting that Canada would have one of the fastest recoveries. I am proud to say that these predictions have come true, given our relative economic, financial, and fiscal strength.
Our red tape initiatives all demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to helping Canadian businesses succeed, and they are part of a broad strategy that is present in almost everything we do. We only need to look at the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study analyzing the ease of paying taxes in 189 countries. The study, called “Paying Taxes 2014”, found that a business in Canada takes 25% less time than a business in the United States to prepare, file, and pay its taxes each year. Furthermore, the study said that Canada is the only G7 country to rank among the top 10 countries based on the overall ease of complying with tax obligations.
Balanced budgets and responsible fiscal management have been keys to helping small businesses succeed, as well as to our success as a country.
Through real action such as enshrining the one-for-one rule in law, we are making the regulatory system more conducive to economic growth. We are creating a more predictable environment for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, and we are freeing entrepreneurs from the burden of regulatory red tape.
Our government is focused on the drivers of growth and job creation—innovation, investment, education, skills, and communities—underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning to a balanced budget. This is our plan for Canada. I hope members of the House will join us in enshrining the one-for-one rule into law to help Canadian businesses succeed.
I talked about how this all fits together and I look at the acronym TIRE, which this government has used: T is for taxes and trade; I is for infrastructure, investments, and immigration; R is for R and D, red tape reduction, and relationships; and E is for entrepreneurship. If I could just go through those, members will see how it all ties together. I talked in my speech about how we look at reducing red tape, but that is just one thing in a large array of things that the government has done to make Canada more competitive.
I will start with the T for taxes and trade. Our government looked at reducing taxes for business to make us more competitive on the world stage. In addition to that, we have fostered additional trade deals—the European free trade deal and all the numerous deals that this country is working on right now—because we realize, as a net exporter, that we need to sell our goods and services around the world. There is no way that 35 million people could sustain the type of GDP that we have come to enjoy without the ability to trade. That is the T in TIRE.
I is for infrastructure, investments, and immigration. We have continued to move forward on immigration reforms to make sure we look at bringing the best and brightest people into this country. We have looked at continuous investments. We look at the Detroit bridge that stalled under the previous Liberal government. We have worked hard to make sure we can get our goods and services to the U.S. in a timely way given the fact that it represents one of our largest trading partners at over 75%. We have spent money on massive infrastructure, and we will continue to commit to infrastructure over the next 10 years as we realize that is important for the sake of our country.
I talked about R and D and trying to make it more targeted, more specific, and more timely. I have just spent my whole time talking about red tape reduction, which is absolutely huge.
The last letter is E for entrepreneurship. Our government has started a venture capital fund, or we have set aside $400 million where we could try to attract, realizing that it is tough sometimes for companies to get started. One of the issues that continues to be there is access to capital. We believe we can continue to create the climate in this country. We will not only continue to lead the world in development but will continue to lead the world in jobs, and Canada will be the best country in the world in which to live, to work, and to play.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciate the member's comments, but I would add a D to the end of his TIRE for a done government, and it is a tired argument.
We see in the legislation before us the ideology of one for one versus that of proper regulation when it comes to new products and entry into the market.
I would ask the member this. When a new product comes in--and it could be a new tablet, a device, or something different--why would we apply the one-for-one rule when we actually have to build in regulations that are new?
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, one of the things we will not jeopardize is the health and safety of Canadians, and that is something we will continue to look at. However, it is only practical, as we look at increased regulations or the threat of increased regulations and rules, that we manage all these things. We understand that if we want to bring in a rule or regulation that there may be other ones that we need to remove to make sure that we continue to keep the burden of red tape down.
One of the things that concerns me is the fact that, as a government, we have done a great job in reducing red tape but there is still more work to be done at the provincial and municipal levels. I think that one of the biggest challenges we have is that we go ahead and reduce red tape, which is good for businesses, but the provinces need to also step up to do these things, as well as the municipalities.
When I talk to small business people, they tell me that one of the biggest challenges they have is complying with all the paperwork, the forms, and all the things that need to be done.
I will just reiterate for the member that we have no intention of jeopardizing the health and safety of Canadians, which is paramount in what we do. However, we need to find ways to help our business people succeed, by making sure we remove some of the obstacles that make it difficult for them to do what they need to do, which is create jobs and wealth for people in this economy.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about reducing red tape, but with so much of what the current government does, it is more deception than reality.
For example, the member talked about the infrastructure program. The government did announce the biggest infrastructure program in Canadian history, but the problem is that the money does not really flow until about 2019, and so that will not do a lot of good for Canadians.
The Conservatives have been talking about reducing red tape for years, but when I talk to small businesses they are still complaining about the burdens they face in terms of paperwork.
My last point is that the member mentioned that the Conservatives will not undermine Canadians' health and safety. However, we have seen recently on the safety side, with the RCMP, that the recommendations from the reports on Mayerthorpe and Moncton were not acted on. The reason they were not acted on is that the resources were not there in terms of personnel and finances to put in place the equipment, training, and weaponry for the RCMP to do its job.
There is a lot of deception on that side and not much reality.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, to address some of the things the member talked about, I mentioned that as we look to streamline the regulatory burden or framework, the challenge still remains that we have provincial and municipal legislation, red tape, and regulations, which continue to be a challenge.
I know that a number of years ago the Progressive Conservative government in Ontario had a red tape reduction commission under Mr. Harris that looked at reducing some of these things. Unfortunately, what has happened over time is that additional burdensome red tape has crept back in, which is one of the things we need to be mindful of, and I know that is what the one-for-one rule does. It is trying to create a new mindset when we look at how we can do this. In my remarks I talked about different agencies and government bureaucracies posting online what they are thinking about doing and then working with industry to find a way to actually do a good job with it.
I think it is a mindset that we need to look at. We could go around the country and consult, but unless we are prepared to sit down and make it a part of the way we look at how we do business, then I think we will have a hard time making it stick. I know that—
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the speech from my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook. In fact, one of the things about this chamber that is regretful is that often we do not hear about the actual resumés, the curriculum vitae, of individual members, which sometimes are very robust. This particular member has one of those.
Rather than talk about the program at the level he was speaking of in regard to government, municipalities, and provinces, I wonder if he would share personally, because he was a very successful small-business owner prior to being elected, what it is like for an entrepreneur who has narrow margins, who is trying to find the right people to work for him to be effective, to deal with municipal, provincial, and federal regulations. How tough is it when there is an extra layer of burden on an entrepreneur? What does it mean to an entrepreneur who may or may not be able to balance his or her books at the end of the month, end of the quarter, and end of the year?
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges small-business people have in this country is that they are expected to wear many hats. When a small-business person, a man or woman, starts a business, he or she needs to be part HR, part finance, part marketing, part administrator, and operator.
What we heard from people across the country was this. I remember sitting around the table, and it was the same thing, whether it was in Ontario or B.C. It was what they are required to provide. Sometimes there is duplication. Sometimes it is like they are being asked the same thing two or three times, whereas if they just talked internally, they would actually have what they need.
In larger companies, there are finance people and accounting departments that will handle some of those things. I think of what happens when a company goes public. One of the biggest things that happens when a company goes public is that its accounting department swells by two, three, four, or five times because of the amount of compliance it is required to have when it is publicly traded. We get that.
What we are talking about are the small-business people who have to do multiple things. Maybe they have to pull a shift, because someone called in sick, or maybe they have to figure out how they are going to hire someone and put ads in the paper, et cetera.
We are looking at not affecting the safety and security of Canadians. We are trying to remove some of the duplication. We are trying to ensure, as I mentioned in my speech, that we take a small-business lens approach, which is absolutely key if we are going to look at it from a small-business point of view. Yes, we still require these things, but how can we make it easier for small-business men or women to provide all these things and still run their businesses successfully and create the jobs we need as Canadians?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I support anything that reduces the red-tape burden on small businesses. My father ran a small business on Cape Breton Island, and my late father used to have a bulletin board with a big headline: “The Government of Canada Never Sleeps”. He would post the things he had been required to fill out, for the enjoyment of tourists.
I want to follow up on the point my friend made about debt. It is not part of this bill, but he made the point that it was important to pay down debt. I am concerned that we are not paying attention to the fact that Canada's national debt is now larger than it has ever been before. It is over $600 billion. The current Prime Minister presided over 24% of that debt-building. It is going to be $29 billion this year in interest payments.
I know that my hon. colleague is not the Minister of Finance, but I am wondering if he has any crystal ball as to whether his administration has any plans to pay down the debt or is just interested in trying to spend money.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
As the member referenced, the question is actually a bit outside the parameters of the question before the House. However, I do recognize the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook did invoke some discussion around that line, so he may want to take that question.
The hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, I certainly would love to entertain that. That is a great question.
The question is around debt. Where I cannot foresee where the budget is going to be in terms of paying down debt, what I can assure the member is that we are going to move back to balanced budgets. That is the first step we need to look at. We cannot even entertain paying down additional debt at this stage until we get a balanced budget. That will be the first thing we do, and it was mentioned in my speech. As we balance the budget and reduce debt, we would reduce interest. When we reduce interest, that frees up money to provide more programming. That provides the opportunity to present tax cuts. That also provides the potential for additional infrastructure, et cetera.
To my hon. colleague's question, it is important that we continue to reduce and come back to balanced budgets so that we have options. Then we can move forward with a new budget that would give us those options, with maybe some suggestions that come up in the new year.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey North, and I am pleased to do so.
I am pleased to speak about Bill C-21. It is an interesting issue. The vast majority of Canadian businesses are small businesses. They employ millions of people. Some employ just one, sometimes two, and sometimes more. It is a vital part of the economy that we have to take care of.
The government website says it all. It has nice cute little scissors cutting red tape and talking about the one-for-one rule. I want to address that to start with.
What is red tape? Red tape can actually prevent yellow tape, yellow tape being sickness, death, or something else. Regulations have been put on products, services, and the way we go about doing business because of problems or issues. We have seen that most recently with food safety, rail, and aviation.
A number of times we have needed to bring in rules. Some of those rules are important. In fact, I want to point to an example of something I worked on when I first got to Parliament, and that was the tax deductibility of fines and penalties. It used to be the case in Canada that people were able to get a tax credit of up to 15% for a fine or penalty they incurred that went through the judicial system.
For example, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a drug company that got $11 million back from a $40 million fine. That is unfair, not only in terms of taxpayers but also for the companies that are actually following the proper regulations and rules and doing the right thing. It would be akin to getting a speeding ticket going to work and being able to write half of it off.
The reality is that the rule is the rule. If people are caught breaking it, then it is a problem. There are two ends to this. The regulation is in place and it is an issue for some businesses to actually get the paperwork and get the regulation through their process. However, there is also the unfair competition aspect, where people are breaking the rules and regulations, taking shortcuts, and putting people's health and safety at risk, and those people are rewarded for that type of behaviour. We end up paying for that in a couple of ways. We pay for it on the front end, with the loss of revenue that could go to other types of things. We also lose by paying for the damage that the improper product or service led to, whether it be a health care cost or an insurance cost.
This is a problem with the ideology of the one-for-one rule. The one-for-one ideology does not take into account new product development, innovation, and change that is necessary at different times. Look at how far electronic products have come over the last number of years.
We have also had changes in the types of materials we have. Sometimes it has been quite positive. Mercury is an example. If we did not have regulations in place, we would end up with more of it in our landfills.
I would argue that regulations can also protect some of our trade. We know from the work we have done in the industry committee that some illegal products, often those coming from China or other places, do not follow some of the regulations, which ends up costing us. Mercury in batteries is a good example. We end up paying for that, at the end of the day. There are even cases where knock-off products were used in hospitals. If the regulatory process is not in place, it can actually create other problems.
The government can help small business. I want to point to products and services it could actually bring in and implement that would be a benefit for them. On the services aspect of the government, small business is hurting. I will use a couple of examples from my constituency. There has been the closing of mail sorting and the raising of the price of stamps.
Right there we have a significant issue that impacts small business far greater than filling forms. When small businesses do their transactions now, their banking, their outreach to the community, they often use door-to-door delivery. Whether it is a pizza place, or a new business, often those flyers are the ones that hit our doors. The postal service is used for that.
The door-to-door delivery is one of the greatest assets for outreach. If there are five or six people working in a small business, or it is a new pizza place, they do not have time to deliver those flyers. They do not have time to do the outreach. However, the post office delivery system offers an economic alternative and a worry-free service that gets business flyers to somebody's door right away.
The Conservatives will argue those post office boxes will do the same thing, but it is not the same. It is not having a person go there. It guarantees that it gets into the customer's hand.
Sorting the mail in London, Ontario is not helping our small businesses in Windsor, Ontario. We now have a built-in delay system, and we throw all these trucks onto the highways and the 401. They go up to 401, get sorted, come back and get distributed, which is another delay in service.
Another one affecting our area is the closure of the consul general services in Detroit. It used to be we could fly into Detroit and if we needed to come across to Canada, we could get a visa right there from that service. A lot of small and medium-sized businesses arrive in Detroit. When they realize how close Canada is, they want to investigate opening a business. However, they have to go to New York or wait three weeks. Closing that service did not help my constituents and small businesses. It put them at risk.
Another thing employers talk about is employment insurance, not having the proper staffing at Service Canada and delays of cases. That hurts on two fronts. It hurts employers that are trying to deal with employment insurance and the lay-off of people for perhaps the first time. It also delays, in the casework files processing, the person receiving employment insurance being able to get that cheque to buy local groceries, products and services. Those things in particular hurt small business.
There is also credit card fees. Small business has been gouged on credit card fees for many years, and that continues. The government's program has not resulted in any significant reduction in credit card fees. They will finally be reduced a little, but not nearly as much as they should be. They still collect billions of dollars in fees.
Adding new products to the market will help small business, like C-290, which is a single sports betting bill. It has been stuck in the Senate for three years. That would allow convenience stores and other small businesses a new source of revenue, taking it away from organized crime and offshore nefarious businesses and putting that money back into the pockets of Canadians.
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
January 26th, 2015 / 5:35 p.m.
Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.
Conservative
Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his new portfolio for small business. I am sure he will be up to the task.
My question is relatively simple. Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act, is premised around working on administrative burden, not compliance burden. There seems to be some misunderstandings about that.
I would like to member to elucidate to the House the difference between administrative burden and compliance burden. If someone knows the difference between the two, they will have a very good understanding of how the bill would relieve many of the administrative burdens on small businesses, while not dealing with any of the health and safety issues he mentioned.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would point back to my experience with the transport sector. When I was on the transport committee, I was the transportation critic at that time, and the Liberals brought in the safety management system. It was reviewed, and what we found was that the two actually connect because of the fact that self-reporting by the railway did not take place due to a culture of fear and intimidation. That is in the Lewis report itself. That meant that in the end, the paperwork did not get done and the inspections diminished, especially with the reduction in the staffing of Transport Canada.
Therefore, they do blend at the end of the day if the system is not accountable, and that is what I worry about. The safety management system is a classic example that, if the system is not healthy, then the other does not get taken care of either.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member this. Does he believe that there are, in fact, federal regulations in place today that are somewhat dated and really serve no purpose or value? Does he believe that the situation exists today?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are always going to be changing circumstances as products and services enter and leave the market. The issue is making sure that the regulatory processes, municipally, provincially, and federally, do not duplicate themselves, and that requires working together, something the current government has been incapable of doing. In fact, the Prime Minister has not even wanted to meet with some premiers. That is the way we have to go about approaching the overlaps.
The reality is that at the end of the day, things change. Every single day there is a new product on the market, and the ideology of the one for one fails from the get-go because it does not take into account the changing world we have.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague for the new file he has taken on, working with small business and bringing concerns to the House.
I would like him to expand a little more on the fact that there is nothing right now that prevents the Conservative government, or any other government, for that matter, getting rid of any regulations that are outdated, are not working, or are in the way. Part of the problem, of course, is that the government has gutted so many of the departments of public servants that maybe that is one of the activities that is not being done. “One for one” is a cute little phrase and we can see it as a campaign slogan, but there is absolutely nothing that prevents a good, responsible government, with solid administration, from actually doing the job of making sure that regulations are up to date and effective.
My concern is what the member has talked about, the whole issue of the safety of transportation, food safety, and safety in other areas. I would like the member to comment, if he would, on those points and any government worth its salt not being on top of this without a cute little slogan.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, absolutely the member is correct. Regulations can be changed at any point in time. A good example is when I tabled a bill on invasive carp in this country. The government stole those regulations and changed them, and I am thankful that it did that. It was an improvement. It is a good example to show that it can be done if it is right and without this legislation and putting all the eggs in the basket of the Treasury Board.
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand up in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North to bring forward their concerns. Today I would particularly like to inform the House that Surrey is on the list of the seven most intelligent communities in the world, so kudos to my city. We always knew that we were very intelligent and we finally made the Intelligent Community Forum list.
I am very proud of my people from Surrey and I am particularly proud of small businesses. As we in the House know, and as we have often heard, it is small businesses that drive this economy. They are the economic engines of this economy from coast to coast.
I have been in the House for over three and a half years now, and I have not seen many initiatives that would actually address the concerns of small businesses in order to ensure that we let them do what they do best, which is to create more jobs and invest in our communities. Bill C-21 has a nice name, “An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses”. I like the title of the bill. If it actually reduced the regulations, that would be welcome on this side of the House, but the fact of the matter is that Conservatives have failed time after time to deliver for our businesses and our communities.
NDP MPs will always look forward to days when we can reduce red tape for our businesses. I was in a business myself before I became a member of Parliament. Unfortunately, I had to sell it, because being a member of Parliament involves quite a bill of work. I can tell members that the amount of red tape and the forms I had to fill out took a lot of time that I could have more productively invested in my business and in hiring more people.
We know the system is broken. We know there is a lot of red tape that small businesses have to jump across. Big businesses have lots of employees. They have HR departments and PR departments. They have many departments. In small businesses, the CEO is the one who actually sweeps the floor at the end of the day. The CEO is the one who handles the paperwork. There is a lot of extra burden on small businesses that could be eliminated, and doing that could actually help small businesses prosper.
When we are looking at reducing red tape for small businesses, we need to ensure that health and safety issues are also addressed and that we are not stripping away the very regulations that protect Canadians. Whether they are health, safety, or environmental issues, those are fundamental. We need to ensure we do not strip those regulations away.
There is a small business group that meets regularly in my community. Whenever I am in Surrey, I attend those meetings. What those small businesses want from the federal government is, first of all, a fair system. I can say from my experience that the exorbitant amount of money we pay to the credit card companies is ridiculous. At the end of the day, we see a $10 Visa transaction, and part of that money is taken away by the credit card company. We know those are high fees. We have been advocating to the government on behalf of businesses to ensure that there is a fair system in place and that the credit card companies are not gouging these small businesses, but this has not been done because the government caved under the Bay Street bullies. It failed to protect consumers, it failed to protect Canadians, and it failed to protect the very small businesses that are the economic engines of this country.
The group also talked about mental health issues in the community. Small businesses want the federal government to provide housing for mentally ill individuals who are out on the street. Some of the businesses are being hurt because these people are sleeping in front of the businesses. These are the kinds of initiatives that small businesses want in our communities. With them, they can do what they know best, which is to grow and create jobs.
They need government assistance to ensure they have the proper tools to expand and hire more workers. Housing for mental health patients is the kind of initiative that the Conservative government has failed to deliver for Canadians and small businesses.
I want to echo what the previous member talked about when it came to postal services. If the government is truly interested in delivering for small businesses, it would not increase the postal service fees imposed, most notably, on small businesses.
Most of the business I attracted, and the business I offered, was through Canada Post. It was fairly efficient and costs were fairly competitive. It allowed me to get my message to out to my customers. The Conservative government has raised that cost. Every bit of cost that is added to small businesses hurts them. It takes them away from the very focus of creating jobs and offering their products to the communities.
Any time there is a reduction in red tape, we on this side of the House will support that. However, the plan of the government would not reduce red tape. It talks about how it would bring in one regulation and eliminate another. The government should be looking at the very regulations we have right now. Eliminate the ones that are red tape. Why do we need to have another regulation to eliminate some of the regulations that are already red tape? We could be more efficient, but the government has failed to realize that.
When we talk about regulations, the government has failed to deliver for small businesses time after time. We will always support the regulations that will protect Canadians and their health and safety concerns. We have seen the regulation of some of the very industries in front of us. If we look at the food and safety industries, we have seen the results of that in Alberta, where thousands of jobs were hurt because the government failed to provide the safety regulations and inspectors to ensure the food was safe. We have seen the cuts in the railway and to the very regulations that provide for safety along the railway corridors. We have seen this erosion not only come from the Conservative government, but from the Liberals, and it keeps going on and on.
If Conservatives were really trying to help the economic engines of the country, the small businesses, it would take the initiative. It would provide leadership.
Another example is the $500 million hiring credit that we supported. We wanted it to go beyond the 2014 budget. The Conservatives eliminated it. Instead, it put in another credit of $500 million, but it created only 800 jobs. According to my math, that is about $75,000 per job. That is how the Conservatives spend the hard-earned money of Canadian taxpayers.
I will again ask the Conservative government to ensure that it makes concrete efforts to help our small businesses, rather than put red tape up in front of them.
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
January 26th, 2015 / 5:50 p.m.
Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.
Conservative
Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite, a fellow British Columbian. I always appreciate hearing his input.
The one-for-one rule has been in place in British Columbia for a long time. The government is showing leadership by saying that we will make it into law, and we will be the only jurisdiction in the world to do so, which amounts to more than a slogan. Time and again at the red tape commission, which held hearings right across this country, we heard from members of the small business community who said they wanted to see a reduction in bureaucratic red tape. Therefore, the one-for-one rule actually forces the bureaucrats here in Ottawa to review those regulations, and any time they want to add another one they will have to take one out. That will allow modernization of these laws as they come to pass.
I have two short questions. First, does the member realize that the one-for-one rule will only apply to the administrative burden? This means that the forms or emails one has to send showing that one has complied with government regulation have nothing to do with health or safety, just the associated paperwork. If that can be done online and if we ask for the same information less often or require that instead of doing quarterly reports they do it once a year, would the member support that?
Second, do the New Democrats support this bill? I have heard them talking in a wishy-washy manner about red tape and wanting to see it gone, but will they support this common sense bill, which is supported by groups like the CFIB and will at the end of the day help small businesses?
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member can be assured that I will not support any bill that does not actually help small businesses. This bill does not help small businesses.
We introduced 12 amendments at committee stage. None of those amendments were accepted by the government. One of those amendments called for a consultation with businesses so that we consult the very people who will be affected by new regulations coming out or those being eliminated. That is nothing new from the current government because it does not consult the people who will be impacted by the regulations and the laws.
We would first want the government to consult the stakeholders, the people and the businesses who will be affected. Time after time, it has failed to do that.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, as we debate the red tape bill and what it would do for small business, there is an opportunity today to focus on this term “job creators”. We have heard for some time from the Conservative administration that the job creators are the large corporations whose corporate tax rate they have reduced to 15%. It is clear, based on the evidence as described by our former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, that the large corporations are taking the money they have avoided in paying taxes and having it slosh around in their bank accounts. Mark Carney called it the “dead money”. It is now an astonishing 32% of our GDP that is in these large corporate bank accounts. It is not helping to create jobs, while small and medium-size businesses and enterprises do create the jobs.
I wonder if my friend has any comments on that.
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the economic drivers of job creation and wealth in this country and we should be supporting them.
The member is absolutely right that the government has reduced the corporate tax rate for the big corporations to a very low rate. It is much lower even than the rate in the United States.
The idea behind lowering taxes is that corporations would make money and then reinvest that into new businesses and create new jobs. However, the big corporations and friends of the Conservatives have not done that. There is over $500 billion of dead money sitting in corporate balance sheets that has not come back to create more jobs. Rather, as the member has pointed out, it is dead money.
We should be providing small business with incentives like the one we had advocated for, a hiring tax credit that would provide them additional incentives to hire more young people, youth, and students. We know that the youth unemployment rate is high and that small businesses could provide them with jobs, but time after time the Conservatives have failed to provide these incentives.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the fine member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, whose constituency is next to mine.
First, I would like to wish all of the members of the House, as well as the support staff and pages, a happy 2015. I would also like to wish all of my constituents of LaSalle—Émard good health, happiness and solidarity. I will also take this opportunity to wish the owners and employees of small and medium-sized businesses in the riding of LaSalle—Émard a happy and prosperous 2015. Happy new year as well to all of the members of the co-operatives, which are also businesses that are striving for a sustainable and 100% local economy.
At the beginning of this new year, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.
This is a very important bill, particularly when you come from a riding such as mine, namely LaSalle—Émard. LaSalle has close to 1,680 registered businesses and 71% of them employ fewer than 10 workers. There are therefore many small and medium-sized businesses in LaSalle, many of which are retail stores.
We recently learned of the imminent closure of Target stores and the loss of hundreds of jobs in my riding. Small business is very important to the Sud-Ouest borough. There are 2,047 small businesses in the borough, and 69% of them have fewer than 10 employees. This is the case across Canada. Canada's economic landscape is shaped by a large number of small and medium-sized businesses which, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, are the driving force of our economy. More than 75% of jobs are created by small and medium-sized businesses. One would think that Bill C-21 would focus on the owners and the people who work in these businesses. This is also a bill that, to some degree, could be of interest to co-operatives. We often forget that co-operatives are also businesses involved in a multitude of areas. Naturally, we always want to help the owners of small and medium-sized businesses, but we could also consider co-operatives.
We must be careful. Once again, the Conservatives are talking about a bill to help small and medium-sized businesses and to reduce red tape. However, we should also realize that regulations have a very important role to play in Canada, whether it is protecting the environment or ensuring the health and safety of Canadians. Regulations stem from the bills introduced in the House of Commons, bills that are introduced by all members in order to improve the lives of Canadians, not to increase red tape.
The Conservatives are using this bill to eliminate some regulations, but these regulations are important to protect the safety and health of Canadians and to protect the environment.
Government regulations are intended to protect the safety and health of Canadians and protect the environment. That should be a priority. Regulations that are in the public interest should be maintained. It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations on the books, as is the case with Bill C-21, but of determining which regulations are working for Canadians and which are not.
Let us look at how the bill defines an administrative burden:
“administrative burden” means anything that is necessary to demonstrate compliance with a regulation, including the collecting, processing, reporting and retaining of information and the completing of forms.
It may not, in fact, be an administrative burden, but rather a tool to ensure accountability or to answer questionnaires, as is often the case.
Businesses must prove that they comply with the regulations and look at the whole economic picture. However, not every small and medium-sized business has the resources to comply with these administrative rules. That is why legislators, and not just bureaucracy or the public service, must be innovative. We also need to give small and medium-sized businesses the means to comply with administrative demands.
Earlier, Conservative members spoke about online forms and faster ways to comply with administrative regulations. What are they doing to ensure that all Canadians have access to high-speed Internet? Speaking of high speed, this is also a matter of how easy it is to fill out and submit these forms. The government must also ensure that high-speed Internet is affordable for all Canadians and for small and medium-sized businesses. The Conservatives have completely missed the boat there.
As legislators, we are also responsible for introducing bills that will not increase the administrative burden on small and medium-sized businesses. However, a bill introduced not long ago by the Conservatives, Canada's anti-spam legislation, places a huge added administrative burden on small and medium-sized businesses. In addition, this bill, Bill C-21, is inconsistent by virtue of its own administrative burden, because it requires a calculation of the cost of the administrative burden and compliance deadlines.
The truth is that Bill C-21 will not reduce the administrative burden for small and medium-sized businesses. On the contrary, the Conservatives will actually be increasing their burden without really helping them by instituting a hiring tax credit, which the NDP has proposed, or reducing the credit card fees they have to pay.
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
January 26th, 2015 / 6:05 p.m.
Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.
Conservative
Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused on the position of the NDP on Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. Earlier, members said that they would not support anything that would not help small business, yet the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, with members from coast to coast to coast in our great country, has said that it would support the one-for-one rule. It supported it when it was a policy of government, and it is excited to see the government taking a leadership role and actually enshrining it into law.
Again, small business is keenly supportive of it. Are the NDP members seriously suggesting that small business is not supportive of the bill? I do not understand. Maybe the member could clarify it.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board for his question. He has given me an opportunity to discuss an issue I did not have time to address because I did not have much speaking time.
We have to wonder whether the one-for-one approach is the smartest and most effective way to reduce the administrative burden. My colleague's government increased the administrative burden for small and medium-sized businesses by passing the anti-spam legislation and complicating Revenue Canada.
I believe that the Conservatives are going overboard and actually increasing the administrative burden for small and medium-sized businesses.
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. It is obvious that she is very knowledgeable when it comes to her riding and businesses. She does an incredible job for co-operatives.
Co-operatives will also be affected by this bill. Even though my Conservative colleague says that we are not being clear, we do want to reduce the burden for small business.
My spouse owns a small business that has five employees. He is always telling me how all the forms make his job difficult. He has to ask for help from many people, including his accountant. At the end of the year, his income is modest because he spends money on getting help to fill out the forms. This bill only increases that burden.
We understand why the one-for-one rule was introduced. However, the NDP wonders whether that is the best solution. New products are coming onto the market every day and there is a great deal of innovation. The one-for-one rule may well be obsolete.
Would my colleague comment on what the NDP is proposing to do to help make small businesses more profitable? She mentioned that these businesses create 75% of jobs in Canada. What does the NDP want to do to help them?
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.
The NDP is the only party that has denounced the abusive transaction fees small and medium-sized businesses are charged, particularly for credit card transactions. We also want the hiring tax credit to be restored.
The NDP is also the only party that defends co-ops, businesses that are 100% Canadian and create a sustainable, fair economy.
The government claims it wants to help small and medium-sized businesses, but it is completely neglecting a sector of our economy that creates jobs in Canada and contributes to our multi-faceted economy.
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the honour of rising in the House in 2015, so I would also like to take a moment to wish all my colleagues a happy new year. I wish all my constituents a happy, healthy and successful year. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the small and medium-sized businesses in my riding and wish them a happy new year. I am lucky to have many small businesses throughout my riding, including the Lachine industrial park and the Dorval industrial park. There are SMEs in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Montreal West. I am very familiar with these SMEs because I am involved in the business groups in my riding. I talk to them regularly and they tell me about the problems they face. As I said, my husband owns a small business that he started three years ago, with a storefront that just opened this year. We talk about it a lot, because it can be complicated, so I am very familiar with what is at stake.
I am rising in the House today to oppose at third reading Bill C-21, which seeks to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.
I would first like to remind members that the bill was meant to respond to the poor management of regulations, which has been hindering the growth of our companies. The red tape that our businesses have to deal with is preventing them from successfully carrying out their innovative projects, which promote economic growth and benefit the entire country. In that regard, it is important to point out that many regulations are problematic for our economic activities. I think that everyone agrees that there are too many regulations and that something needs to be done. However, it is important to point out that this debilitating situation is the result of the action taken to date by Liberal and Conservative governments. We are trying here to repair the damage done by previous governments through neglect. As I said, the administrative burden is too heavy right now, but regulations cannot just be changed willy-nilly. A procedure must be followed. Right now, the government is eliminating regulations that are very important.
To explain why I am opposed to this bill, I would like to remind members that, in 2012, the Conservatives passed an action plan that consisted of 90 measures to be taken by the departments and six major reforms, including the one-for-one rule. This rule requires the government to eliminate one regulation for every new regulation it adopts. The one-for-one rule also stipulates that departments must evaluate the impact that any proposed regulation would have on small businesses. What is more, the government must offset any new burden on small businesses, that is, time and money spent by businesses to demonstrate compliance, with amendments to existing regulations. That was the theoretical answer the Conservative government gave us in 2012.
I understand that a reduction in red tape in necessary. However, the government cannot simply say that a regulation must be eliminated every time a new one is adopted. I think that happens naturally at some point. If there are outdated regulations or regulations that are no longer useful, they should be eliminated. This should not be a requirement every time a new regulation needs to be put in place. I think we need to look beyond that.
In truth, Bill C-21 is dangerous. I will explain why I think we should not support it. First, it gives the President of the Treasury Board a completely arbitrary position. He might unilaterally decide to get rid of some regulation or another. He can establish policies on how the rules will apply. He will have the power to regulate how deadlines will be determined for taking the necessary measures in order to comply with the regulations. He will have the power to determine the manner of calculating the cost of the administrative burden and how the law will apply to regulations that are amended when the one-for-one rule comes into effect. He will also have the power to grant exemptions.
We all know that our President of the Treasury Board is not the biggest fan of regulations in general. In my opinion, giving him too much authority might jeopardize the many regulations that are essential for Canadians.
We might also wonder what right the President of the Treasury Board has to hold such power. Since I have been here, I have seen the Conservatives give a lot of power to the ministers and the President of the Treasury Board. In our system, I do not think we should give all the power to the government in place, the ministers or the President of the Treasury Board.
In a democratic Canada, if we have democratic principles, we need to care about what Canadians want. I think it is very dangerous to put all the power in the hands of one person. One has to wonder.
Furthermore, we cannot stand for compromising regulations that deal with sensitive topics, such as those that protect the interests of Canadians. Contrary to what the government appears to be trying to show, some regulations truly are necessary and essential. Regulations dealing with the health and safety of Canadians, for example, must be handled carefully and wisely. The Conservatives seem to want to reject any protections related to the interests of Canadians. The only mention of regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians is in the preamble. There is no other mention in the bill. How can the government completely disregard a topic that so directly affects how we protect Canadians?
This is an unfortunate demonstration of the Conservative government's lack of interest in issues that truly matter to Canadians. These subjects do not seem to be priorities for the Conservative government. Think of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. That was the result of decades of Liberal and Conservative deregulation. Canadians' safety is not an option; it is an objective. We should all keep that in mind as we discuss this bill.
I also want to point out that Bill C-21 is silent on the environment. The government continues to ignore the protection of nature and the consequences of human activity on the resources available to us. Once again, it looks like taking care of those things is not on the government's agenda even though creating a regulatory framework for that would be very useful. That is why I do not think that the one-for-one rule should apply in this case. There are necessary regulations that should not be summarily discarded.
This bill is awash in paradoxes. Although touted as a bill to reduce the burden, it is counter-productive. The bill calls for an annual report on the implementation of the one-for-one rule and gives the Governor in Council the power to adopt regulations dictating how that report should be structured. In addition, the bill calls for a review of the law after five years, thereby creating an even greater administrative burden. Instead of simplifying the existing regime, these measures will slow down reforms and end up wasting public funds at Canadians' expense.
Instead, the NDP is proposing more consistent and more careful management of regulations. We want to promote SMEs and help young entrepreneurs and family businesses so they can contribute to the growth of our country and our economy. As I was saying, SMEs create most of the jobs in this country and wealth that could spur economic growth. With everything that is going on, we know that growth is sluggish. We really need to focus on SMEs and jobs that are created locally. That is really important.
Clearly, the Conservatives have not really managed to improve the situation. They have made it worse. For instance, the hiring tax credit was eliminated from the 2014 budget. That credit was really important to small businesses. The transaction fees that Canadian businesses are charged are among the highest in the world. Lowering those fees would also really help small businesses.
The Conservatives promised to do something, but instead, they allowed credit card companies to use voluntary measures. This is another fine example of self-regulation. This just goes to show how little this government cares about the interests of SMEs and Canadian consumers. They come second to the interests of large corporations and multinationals.
It is not complicated. We want to help SMEs. As my colleagues said, we are in favour of reducing red tape. We are in favour of reducing this burden. However, we cannot go about this in any old fashion. The NDP proposed 12 amendments in committee. Nine of those sought to protect health and safety, food safety, transportation safety and the environment. They were all rejected. This is a government that never listens to the opposition and does not want to work with us.
Bill C-21 had the potential to be good. Unfortunately, the government did not allow us to give our opinion and stand up for the interests of Canadians. For that reason, I will be forced to vote against this bill.
That being said, I think that it is important in future to have a better way to work with small businesses on reducing their burden. It is very important. They create good local jobs and we must help them.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member, in a question earlier, made reference to the fact that her spouse is a small businessman and an entrepreneur. She said that the New Democrats do not support the legislation, as her other colleagues have indicated very clearly.
There is a feeling among small businesses and middle-sized businesses, and it has been reflected in umbrella organizations, that even though the legislation has fallen short in many ways, it does seem to have support and acceptance from small business and brings us a small step in the right direction. In that case, how can the New Democrats say, on the one hand, that they are supporting small and medium-sized business policies and that this is a policy that they actually support, and then vote against it?
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
I will go back to the small businesses in my riding and explain to them why I voted against this bill. The government cannot brush aside certain regulations that are necessary for the health and safety of Canadians just so that it can put other regulations in place.
Many witnesses supported us in committee. Chris Aylward from the Public Service Alliance of Canada said that Bill C-21 was useless and would not protect Canadians properly. Robyn Benson, the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said that the regulations could save lives if they were enforced properly, but that it sometimes takes a serious tragedy to make people aware of the importance of these regulations, and even then, that is not always the case.
There are necessary regulations that cannot be eliminated. By imposing the one-for-one rule, the government is eliminating regulations that should not be eliminated. I therefore cannot vote in favour of this bill. There are other ways to help small businesses. The hiring credit was an excellent way to help, as is the reduction of credit card fees.
Also, the cost of mailing letters and parcels through Canada Post has increased so much that it has become another burden on small businesses. Clearly, there are concrete ways to help our SMEs. I really want to do that, but this bill does not meet the criteria that I think are important in protecting Canadians. I cannot vote in favour of this bill.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a concern, and I would like her to speak to it a bit more.
One of the issues and concerns that members of this caucus had about the bill was that there was nothing in it, other than in the preamble, that protected health and safety regulations and ensured that the health and safety of workers throughout this country were protected.
We are concerned about this aspect because the current government does not have a good record when it comes to safety regulations. The Conservative governments and the Liberal governments before them have been very much in favour of voluntary regulation. That is the direction that they followed as it relates to both transportation and food security.
I would like to ask the member if she would comment. Regardless of the concerns that have been raised, regardless of the fact that the Conservatives continue to say that this bill would not affect health and safety regulations, can the member explain why she thinks the government failed to accept any of our amendments that would have ensured that the protection of health and safety regulations was spelled out clearly in the text of this bill?
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The NDP presented nine recommendations to prevent the government from eliminating regulations relating to health, safety, food safety, transportation safety, safety management systems and Canadians' environment. The members of the committee voted against these amendments.
This means that we are not able to ensure that this bill will not affect safety, health or transportation safety. I refuse to hand the government a blank cheque, and I especially refuse to put so many powers in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board without first ensuring that the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
Resuming debate. I think the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is aware that he will only have about two minutes to start his speech.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time, not the two minutes, but what is left of it thereafter.
I am pleased to rise and speak for a few minutes on Bill C-21. I have listened to much of the debate. It is interesting to note that it is always said that if regulation and red tape were removed, that would be of benefit to small business.
Regulations, like laws, have been established to protect our economy and our communities and to ensure the proper operation of our economy and our communities to the benefit of small and large businesses and individual citizens, and to try to ensure their safety through the administration of our food and transportation systems, and others.
If the government is not paying attention to regulations and to ensuring that counter-productive, wrong-headed, and inefficient ones are not dealt with, then it is not doing its job. Wrapping up that commitment under a cute little title called “one for one” is not going to make any difference. Many of the small business people that I talk to in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour are not easily fooled by this kind of sloganeering and campaigning.
All the government wants to be able to do with Bill C-21 is to ensure that when the election is called, it is able to put up a sign repeating the slogan that it has reduced red tape. The government should be doing its job and making sure that it gets rid of inefficient regulations while ensuring the protection of Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
The hon. member will have eight minutes when the debate resumes on this legislation.
The House resumed from January 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour has eight minutes remaining.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and finish my intervention from last week on this important bill.
Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, known as the “red tape bill”, is an interesting idea, an idea that has been tried by a number of governments at all levels. It comes up especially when parties are campaigning, when candidates go out and talk to small business people. They say they are going to get in there and work to get rid of red tape and bring the cost burden of red tape down for people with small businesses. They are going to make a real difference.
It should be the goal of all governments to ensure that any regulations that exist are up to date and current and accomplish what they set out to accomplish. Otherwise, they should be jettisoned. They should be revised or just gotten rid of. Any government worth its salt would do that as a normal administrative practice within its responsibilities.
However, sometimes, mainly for political reasons, governments like to trot out a particular catchy phrase in the way that this bill does. It talks about one for one. It talks about how the Conservatives have communicated with public servants within the bureaucracy and have told them that if they are going to bring a regulation forward, then they have to get rid of a regulation. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the regulation they are bringing forward has any merit or whether the regulation they want to get rid of does not have any merit; it is simply on the basis of one for one. It is nothing more and nothing less than bald politics. It has nothing to do with proper administration.
An issue that we have raised here on a number of occasions is that there are many good reasons for regulation. The government has a role to play beyond just ensuring that businesses are able to operate effectively and efficiently and that the rules and regulations that affect them are appropriate and efficient; on behalf of the public interest, the government also has to ensure that there are good health and safety regulations. It ensures that there are good regulations that protect Canadians in the area of food safety and good regulations to ensure that the immigration process works smoothly. There is an important role for regulations to play in the process.
My concern with a bill like this is that the Conservatives are just looking for numbers and looking at being able to roll out a banner during the election campaign to say what they have been able to accomplish with their one-for-one campaign. If the Conservatives were truly serious, then they would prove to small business and to Canadians by their actions that they were in fact administering the federal government effectively and efficiently.
I took the opportunity over the past year and a half to communicate with small business people on the issues they were most concerned about as they related to the role of the federal government. The top of the list tended to be taxation. That is why small business people in my community in the constituency of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour have responded so well to the announcement by our leader that when we are elected in 2015, we will bring forward a reduction in the small business tax from 11% to 9%.
That tends to be at the top of the list of small businesses in my community. That is why they have responded so well.
The second item that tended to be important was cracking down on anti-competitive credit card merchant fees. That was something that the government had talked about doing. It talked about it in the Speech from the Throne last year. It talked about it before in the election campaign, saying that it was going to bring down the cost of the use of credit cards for merchants.
What happened? The government bowed to pressure from the big banks. It decided in favour of the wishes of the big banks, which make billions of dollars in profit every year as a result of many of the things that the government does. The government decided to land on the side of the big banks rather than the small businesses, and it has not done anything with the credit card merchant fees.
That is another commitment that the New Democratic Party has made to Canadians.
The small business people in my community are always concerned about paperwork and regulations that are useless or do not make sense. They are concerned about them, but those matters fall well down the list in terms of priority.
If I may, allow me to bring up a couple of other points. In this bill, what the Conservative government talks about is a focus on inefficient and unnecessary regulation. It also talks about the bureaucracy and the burden of paperwork.
As I was thinking about this, I thought about the infant from Egypt who was prohibited from travelling with her family to Canada simply because of unnecessary, unfair, and unrealistic policies made by the Conservative government. I see it in my office all the time, whether it is with immigration, employment insurance, the Canada pension, or Canada pension disability. The Conservative government is not doing Canadians any favours when it comes to dealing with the kinds of forms, processes, policies, and regulations that ordinary Canadians need to deal with in order to access some of the programs that still exist in this country. If the government were truly concerned about getting rid of inefficient and ineffective regulations and policies, it would pay much more attention to the ones that we have brought to the attention of members here in the House.
This bill, unfortunately, could be much more than it is. It is no more than political rhetoric on behalf of the government. If it was truly concerned about dealing with regulation, it would simply do it and prove to Canadians through its actions that it is making a difference on the issue of regulation.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time to ask my colleague a question on his very eloquent speech on this specific issue.
We know that red tape is problematic. However, we do not see that the Conservatives are on the right track when it comes to safeguarding the regulations and standards that protect the health and safety of Canadians.
As we look at what the Conservatives are saying they are trying to do, what we are seeing more and more is smoke and mirrors. The Conservatives have boasted that they are helping small businesses by eliminating red tape, yet they did not renew the hiring credit for small businesses. We have heard that on a number of occasions. Instead, they spent $500 million on an ineffective credit that would create only 800 jobs.
Perhaps my colleague could elaborate on that a little bit, because while red tape is quite problematic for the thousands of small businesses that make a big difference in my community of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the fact that the hiring credit is not there impacts them even more. Maybe my colleague could elaborate on that.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The government turning its back on the hiring tax credit, again something cited by small businesses in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, showed it was on the wrong track.
Hiring young people, reducing taxes, growing the economy, having more people working and being able to buy goods and services from small businesses, ensuring seniors have a pension on which they are able to support themselves and continue to live in dignity in their community are the kinds of priorities that I hear from small businesses in my community. I know the hon. member feels the same way,
Small businesses are an integral part of our communities right across the country. It is time we started to listen to them the way the leader of the New Democratic Party has listened to them.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and the work he does in his community. We know that he cares about the people in his community and he works very hard.
There are always questions that come to my mind. As the environment critic and a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I know how much the Conservatives like to reduce environmental protections.
It would seem that they want to again reduce environmental protections with this bill. Of course, no one is opposed to cutting red tape. We all support that.
However, some regulations are useful and in the public interest. They must not be cut. I am also thinking of some controls that are really beneficial for Canadians and some specific measures that help small businesses and protect the environment and people's safety. These protections must not be reduced.
Does my colleague believe that we really need to cut red tape because it will be beneficial for SMEs, but that we must also ensure that we keep those measures that protect the environment and people's safety?
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Drummond is absolutely right. As the official opposition critic for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I have been concerned with some of the changes that have happened since the Fisheries Act was amended back in 2012. These changes have affected our ability to protect the ecosystem of our lakes and rivers in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and across the country.
These are areas where, as I said before, regulations serve an important public interest. The concern is that with the government's gimmicky one-for-one approach and the fact that it is giving sole responsibility for doing this to the President of the Treasury Board is a matter that concerns me and our caucus a great deal.
The government needs to do a better job. Then there will be no need for gimmicky legislation like this.
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-21, an act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. It is a good bumper sticker for Conservative politics later on in this year. It is also a bill that is in some ways very confusing.
If we take the basic premise that we will get rid of a regulation for every regulation we create, that logically says there are quite a number of regulations that do not need to be on the books right now. Why does the government not do some homework and identify the regulations that are not important to the Canadian public, to businesses and to the happiness of the Canadian state and simply eliminate those regulations? Would that not make more sense than tying up the time of the House of Commons with a bill that really does not nail anything down? It simply lays out a pattern that can or cannot be obeyed. It is sort of like the elections limits law earlier in my time in Parliament. People could follow it if they wanted or they did not have to follow it
The President of the Treasury Board may establish policy or issue directives respecting the manner in which the rules can be applied. We have another law that is really for public consumption. It really will not affect too much in the way that business regulations are set or not set in Parliament.
For instance, it says in the preamble of the bill that the one-for-one rule may not compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy. It is in the part of the bill that is not law. It simply talks about the bill. Where Conservatives outline their concerns about where we should not touch regulations on a one-to-one basis, it really is inappropriate, it does not work and it is not part of any requirement of government to follow.
Environment, immigration or human rights are not mentioned. A whole number of things are not mentioned. The Conservatives' thoughts are very different from their thoughts about foreign regulation or how to sell the Canadian public on the idea they are taking care of the economy, the economy being a very complex organism which has social, cultural and environmental aspects to it at all times.
I was a small businessman for many years in the Northwest Territories. I dealt with small businesses in limited markets under very difficult conditions. Regulations set out a pathway for businesses in many cases. They provide, and should provide, a mechanism by which business people can conduct their business in a good and proper fashion. That is the purpose of regulation. Regulations put everyone on a level playing field. Everyone is required to abide by regulations.
Within the economy, there are some rules and conduct that can make business work. Therefore, regulations are very important. To simply deal with regulations in this rather cavalier fashion, saying that for every new regulation we create we are going to take one away, is patently absurd.
Let us go back to the environment. The Conservatives have been changing environmental laws to help large resource developers to effect their businesses better in the three northern territories. That has not worked very well for them. With the changes to the NWT environmental legislation that occurred last year along with devolution, they are now in court with first nations over those changes.
Now we have uncertainty in the Northwest Territories about how development is going to proceed because of those changes. Now the government has decided to do a somewhat similar thing in Yukon with Bill S-6. It would make changes to the Yukon environmental legislation.
The bill has created a firestorm among first nations and ordinary Yukon citizens right across the territory. The people of Yukon understand that the best way for developers to proceed is with the full understanding and co-operation of first nations.
What the government has done in both territories is created this chasm and brought legislation forward which has the exact opposite effect of what it says it is trying to do. I think this bill will probably be similar in some ways.
As I said earlier, if regulations are not appropriate, they should be taken down. We should not wait until another regulation comes along to decide that a regulation is not appropriate anymore. That really is an unbelievably inane way of conducting government.
The NDP has some sensible suggestions for small business. What are we going through right now in Canada? We have a dollar that has dropped by about 20%. What does that do for small businesses that want to innovate and expand their production base, much of which would be imported machinery?
What we need is an innovation tax credit to encourage investments in machinery, especially at this time when we are dealing with 80¢ dollars that have to buy equipment from countries that have a better exchange rate, like the United States.
The NDP tax innovation credit is a good idea. It is an idea for 2015, for the situation in which we exist today. The New Democrats would also extend the accelerated capital cost allowance, which would allow businesses to quickly write off the cost of processing equipment and machinery. This allowance is set to expire this year. At the very time it is needed most, it is going to expire.
Hopefully over the course of this year, as the government changes, we will be able to put some of these things into effect.
As well, cutting the small business tax rate from 11% to 10% and then to 9% is a good solid idea. Small businesses create jobs, they grow communities and they provide services to those who would not have them otherwise.
We do not see multinational corporations investing in small business in my communities in the Northwest Territories. We see the average Joe, the person who has a few dollars and wants to make a difference putting that to work in his community. A lower tax rate for those people ensures that the money will circulate within the economy.
Lowering the tax rate for multinational corporations with multitudinous shareholders all over the world means that the money is dispersed to other sources, dead money in many cases, sitting in banks, good to no one at all. Perhaps we should have a look at other ways to activate that money. That is something the NDP government can look at as it moves into the future.
I have a minute left, and that is probably all the bill deserves. It is really does nothing. The way it is set up it will be meaningless in the future. It is just another wasted effort on the part of the Conservative government to try to show how it can use symbols rather than real work to persuade Canadians that it is on their side.
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
February 3rd, 2015 / 3:30 p.m.
Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.
Conservative
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member's speech. I want to know how many times he has voted against the accelerated capital cost allowance? I think it was in several budgets in a row, and the NDP voted against it. Suddenly, it is a great manufacturing job-saving idea, because it was in a press released issued by the NDP. We issued it in a budget.
How many times did the member vote against cutting the small business tax rate? Again, several times over several budgets, I recall the member standing and voting against decreasing the small business tax rate.
If those are such great ideas going into the next election, why did the member and his party vote against them for the last three years?
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his question. Of course, it is an interesting question. I think, perhaps, that as a rookie member of Parliament, he might not yet understand how Parliament actually works.
There is the government, and there is the opposition. The opposition opposes the government. It is an adversarial system we work in. For the Conservatives to continue to talk about our voting record on their budgets is facetious, because this is the system we live in and work in.
If we lived and worked in a different parliamentary system, where every person voted on every particular issue as they saw fit, then the Conservatives might have an argument, but they do not. They just have hot air.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, small businesses have a great sense of frustration. Whether it is the municipal, provincial, or national government, they want to see government look at ways it can become more efficient. We need to recognize that there are regulations that are redundant and are no longer necessary.
The bill before us is not earth shattering. It is a small step, and there is a bit of a commitment to deal with regulations.
I listened to today's question period, when the New Democratic Party tried to come across as wanting to be sympathetic to small business. My understanding is that the small business community in Canada supports this proposed legislation, so why would the NDP not support the legislation?
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question, and I will repeat something from my speech that will answer it.
I said at the time that if there are regulations that are inappropriate that are within the purview of the government to change, well then it should change them, and do a decent job. It should do a review of regulations in one sector or another and get rid of the ones that are not required. However, to put forward a bill that says that if we put a new regulation here we will have to pull another one out there, willy-nilly, is really not the way government should operate.
We should operate from the basis of review, understanding, research, and conclusions, not from a point of view of putting up one and taking away another. It is really ridiculous and inappropriate for the way for the government should operate.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's intervention, as a businessman himself.
Does the member not think it is somewhat ironic that the bill proposes to introduce new regulations in order to set up the one-for-one process and that it would all be under the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board? He would decide what would qualify for the one-for-one, and it would be after he had established a whole bunch of additional regulations. Would the member not agree that it is a bit of a waste of money?
Dennis Bevington NDP Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Speaker, I hate to think what the cost of putting the bill through this process has been. It is expensive, and it takes away from other more important things that could be done within the current Parliament. For that matter, whether we vote on it today or tomorrow, the vote for us will be the same: we do not think it is necessary, and we are not going to vote for it.
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
February 3rd, 2015 / 3:35 p.m.
Calgary Centre-North Alberta
Conservative
Michelle Rempel ConservativeMinister of State (Western Economic Diversification)
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be splitting my time with the esteemed member for Peace River.
I just love this bill. It is a common-sense bill that is applauded by small business.
I will walk the House through what regulatory burden is, why this bill is necessary and important, some of the key points the bill covers, and some of the potential improvements small business would see because of it.
This was one of the key recommendations of the red tape reduction action plan.
For the information of hon. members, regulatory burden is essentially government burden. I will read a bit from a posting on the Industry Canada website under “SME Research and Statistics”. It states:
The burden of government is the intervention and interference of government in the operations of a business..... It is the cost involved in complying with regulatory requirements, collecting taxes and responding to information demands from government.... it is the administrative hurdles...the delays, the uncertainties and the frustration involved in dealing with public bureaucracy.
The above definition recognizes that government burden goes beyond regulations to administrative practices such as policies, guidelines and other requirements imposed by a government department.
The article goes on to talk about some of the components of the administrative burden of regulatory oversight as it relates to small business, because there is actually a quantifiable cost. That is what is at the core of this bill.
If we argue that government regulations are a burden on small business and on business in general, why have them at all? We have talked a bit in the House about why regulations are important. I agree that there is definitely a role for government to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. Regulations also ensure that public funds are spent appropriately. They also help to ensure that there is public confidence built into things like the build-out of major natural resources projects, because we will know that the government is there to ensure that the health and safety component is there.
Certainly regulations are important, but there is a cost to having them. If there is a cost to regulations, and it is important for regulations to exist, what is the sweet spot between the two? To me it is ensuring that public safety and the health of Canadians are not compromised, that public funds are used effectively, and that we are evaluating both the positive and negative opportunity costs for business associated with developing a regulation and monitoring on an ongoing basis whether it is effective and efficient, based on the original review.
The question then becomes how we strike this balance. It is important to first define each of the components of that particular opportunity cost calculation.
First of all, does the regulation do what it says it will do? Does it address a need that has been brought forward by Parliament or legislation?
What is the direct cost in terms of staffing hours required by business to comply with the regulation?
What is the cost in terms of the impact on the public service and the public sector? Will we have to employ more bureaucrats? Will we have to put other resources in place to monitor its effectiveness or to ensure that there is compliance?
What about the certainty to business? For example, certainty of regulations often becomes a determinant of investments, especially major capital infrastructure investments, like some of our natural resources projects and whatnot. When a company is looking at putting billions of dollars into a capital investment or having an ongoing operation over a 25-year period, certainty with regard to regulations is also a determinant of investment, because it impacts the decision-making process in terms of investment or long-term spending.
Also, does this create any redundancies? What is the cost in terms of overlap with other regulations?
I think it is important to first define these areas and then to use those definitions to actually monetize and calculate the costs.
I read some of the committee testimony, and it was interesting.
I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House would agree that sometimes regulations can create an incentive to innovate. When we have a policy question that needs to be addressed, can we put a regulation in place that incentivizes behaviour in a certain way that can create growth? More often than not, the monetary impact will probably be detrimental, but these are certainly the sorts of opportunity cost calculation factors we need to be looking at when talking about regulations.
The last component is ensuring that after we have defined them, we can actually measure these costs in the long run. We would not only measure the effectiveness of the regulation but also the costs, both pros and cons, to businesses, the public, et cetera. My colleague who spoke earlier asked why we would have this bill. It is because it would enshrine these principles in legislation and in the operating practices of government, and that is a very good thing.
Why should we have this law? I am so glad the member brought this up. The first reason is that businesses are telling us that they need this. I read through some of the committee testimony, and I want to share with the House something I thought was very impactful. Laura Jones is the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and in committee she said:
...it is a pleasure to be here to represent [the small business] perspective on red tape. I want to be clear about one thing, though, and that is that small businesses absolutely support necessary and important regulations,...
There is an acknowledgement that regulations need to exist.
...those regulations that protect human health, safety, and the environment. In fact, it might surprise some people to know that when we ask small businesses how much of the regulatory burden they think could be cut without sacrificing those important goals, they are saying between 25% and one third. It depends on whom you ask and how you ask the question, but it's roughly in that range.... they're telling us that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the rules in the system are legitimate, necessary rules that they support.
She went on to talk about how while there is support for regulation and acknowledgement that yes, it can incent innovation, there is also a significant and disproportionate impact on small business, because the cost of regulations and the administrative burden on a per-employee basis affects small business the most. We are hearing from industry and industry groups that this particular piece of legislation would ensure that there would be certainty and monetization of the opportunity cost calculation associated with regulatory decisions.
I love that the Prime Minister said, with regard to the regulatory burden, that it is a hidden tax and a killer of jobs. I actually could not agree more. I have personally been impacted by the regulatory burden, though not in a small-business sense. I managed a significant portion of the University of Calgary's research compliance process, and I saw the burden of compliance on government-funded researchers.
It is incumbent upon us to ask how we can ensure that we still have compliance but do it in such an effective way that it is not actually impeding business from being done.
I have to give my colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, a nod for acknowledging a review of that particular problem in the science and technology strategy.
I will close by talking about how this act would achieve some of these balance points we have talked about. Again, the one-for-one rule is a cornerstone of the red tape action plan and would impose new discipline across the regulatory system. It would maintain the current protection of health and safety as it controls both the number of regulations and the growth of the administrative burden for businesses.
What I want to emphasize is that the reason this is effective and necessary is that it would enshrine in our business processes the calculation of costs associated with putting a regulation in place and would ensure that it is reviewed on a regular basis. Under this particular system, it would be incumbent on the public service and on us as legislators to look at the costs that could be incurred through regulation, to be transparent about them, and to talk to people during the consultation process about the assumptions we are making in terms of costing.
By the way, I also read in committee testimony that there was some question about the consultation process when it came to regulatory review. The Canada Gazette process has been in place for a very long time and certainly supports that.
I just think that this particular piece of legislation would enshrine in legislation that practice, which would ensure the efficacy, predictability, and stability of our regulatory system for a long time to come.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, although she attempts to make great points on this issue, the reality is that when we look at regulations and how the current government and the previous Liberal government have actually handled regulations, the record is quite contrary to what they are saying they are trying to achieve. The Conservatives do not have a good track record when it comes to safeguarding regulations and standards that protect the health and safety of Canadians.
When we look back at 2013, we see that the former transport minister granted WestJet an exemption on flight attendant requirements under the Canadian aviation regulations, thereby allowing WestJet planes to fly with one flight attendant for every 50 passengers. We tried to have that reversed to ensure that the ratio of 1.4 was maintained, but the current government certainly went the other way.
Then in 1999, the Liberals further deregulated rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach adopted by the Mulroney Conservative government.
As I have indicated before, when it comes to regulation these are not people that Canadians can trust.
The Conservatives promised to reduce exorbitant transaction fees, but if they really want to make a difference, why will they not pressure Visa and MasterCard about transaction fees? That is what would actually make a difference for small business.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague's question about track records, I will speak specifically to the subject matter of this bill, the government's ability to ensure the health and safety of Canadians while reducing the compliance burden on small business.
The one-for-one regulatory plan, as of June 14, 2014, has resulted in a net annual reduction of over $22 million in the administrative burden on businesses, and is estimated to have saved about 290,000 hours annually in time spent dealing with regulatory red tape, and has seen a net 19 federal regulations taken off the books.
As someone with a small business background and who has seen what small business needs to survive, I think this particular piece of legislation, which says “We're going to put stability, predictability, and efficacy at the core of how we approach regulations”, is something that small businesses across Canada can cheer for.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member across the way. One of the concerns that I suspect many Canadians have is a sense that we need to get a comprehensive approach dealing with regulations. It does cause a great deal of frustration. All one has to look at is the amount of paperwork involved in income tax. There is a sense that the government needs to show stronger leadership in working with other levels of government in dealing with regulations, especially for our small business community.
When we talk about enhancing and seeing our small businesses grow in Canada, thereby creating critically important jobs, one of the issues that needs to be addressed is having an overall, comprehensive approach dealing with regulations at different levels of government.
To what degree does she believe the federal government needs to play a stronger leadership role?
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because I can give a specific example in response. In economic action plan 2012, when we put forward the responsible resource development regulatory framework, the principle of reducing barriers for business in environmental reviews was enshrined. It acknowledged that where we can harmonize review processes in that particular subject matter, we should do so.
Certainly, this was cheered not only because it protected the environment and ensured a stronger review system, but also because it harmonized the time and effort it took to go through these types of processes. I think that is a fantastic example. However, I am not sure my colleague opposite supported it, so I will have to leave it at that.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House and follow the minister. We definitely want to thank her for all of her work at WED and for her commitment to small business. It is a privilege for me to share a province with the member, where we are proud of the work that she has done.
The red tape reduction act is one that is very close to me. I have the privilege of serving on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, and what we have heard again and again from small businesses from coast to coast is the need for the government to get a handle on the amount of red tape that is developed. This one-for-one rule is really moving the goalpost further down the field to ensure that we get to a place where we can address some of the concerns of small businesses and other businesses across the country.
As members know, this legislation would fulfill a commitment that we made as a government. In October, 2012, we brought forward the red tape reduction action plan in response to the commission's recommendations. With this legislation, we hope to make it the law of the land that regulators strictly control the administrative burden they impose upon businesses. Under the one-for-one rule, for every new regulation that adds an administrative burden on businesses, one must be removed.
This is smart legislation. It would help Canadian businesses become more productive and help them succeed in an increasingly global and competitive marketplace.
The red tape reduction act would require that regulators take seriously the requirement to control the amount of red tape imposed upon businesses and the related costs. The legislation is designed to be tough. It would challenge regulators to think through how regulations could be designed and implemented in ways that do not impose unnecessary red tape upon businesses.
It is tough, but it is also quite flexible. The government's commitment to maintaining Canada's high health and safety standards is unwavering. The one-for-one rule would be applied without compromising the protection of the health and safety of Canadians.
This legislation is very timely. As we know, one of the government's top priorities is creating a climate in which business can innovate, invest in the future, and create economic growth and jobs. Too often, red tape gets in the way by tying up a company's time, energy, and production resources. The red tape reduction act would allow businesses to use their resources to become more productive by eliminating unnecessary regulatory red tape.
Given what is happening in the global economy today, we know that Canadian businesses have to be at the top of their game to succeed. The good news is that the Canadian economy has come through a global economic downturn, that recovery is happening, and the economy is in relatively good shape. Canada is positioned for sustainable economic growth.
It is worth remembering that when the hard times arrived in 2008, Canada was in a position of economic strength compared to its international partners. This allowed us to put in place one of the most comprehensive stimulus packages in the world. At the time, international observers, such as the International Monetary Fund, were predicting that Canada would be one of the fastest countries to recover. I am proud to say that these predictions have come true, given our relative economic and fiscal strength.
Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and jobs lost during the recession. The Canadian economy has boasted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 over the recovery, with nearly 1.2 million jobs created since June, 2009. Over 90% of the jobs created since June 2009 are full-time positions, 80% of those in the private sector, and over two thirds in high wage industries.
What is more is that the real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7. Not only has Canada weathered the economic storm well, but the world has also noticed. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect that Canada will be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for the seventh year in a row in its annual Global Competitiveness Report. According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7, and 46% lower than those in the United States.
In addition, four credit rating agencies, Moody's Investors Service, Fitch Ratings, Standard and Poors, and DBRS, have reaffirmed their top rating for Canada and expect Canada to maintain its AAA rating in the year ahead.
However, we cannot rest on this record of success. Despite solid job creation since 2009, too many Canadians remain unemployed. That is why the government's economic action plan focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation—innovation, investment, education, skills and communities—underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning a balanced budget by 2015.
Clearly, responsible fiscal management has to be in place for us to succeed. Canada is one of the few countries that can now boast of having a declining tax rate and a low debt. That is why we remain committed to eliminating the deficit. Reducing debt helps to keep interest rates low and encourages businesses to invest and create jobs.
Reducing debt signals that the public services are sustainable over the long run. The gains that we saw as a result of Canada's low-tax plan are fostering long-term growth that will continue to generate high wage jobs in Canada into the future. It strengthens the country's ability to respond to economic shocks, such as the global financial crisis that we witnessed in 2009, and it will ensure that Canada keeps its economic advantage now and for generations to come.
Helping Canadian companies succeed in the global economy has clearly been a priority of this government and we certainly have seen the success of that. By taking action such as enshrining the one-to-one rule in law, we are making the regulatory system more conducive to business success and to economic growth. We are creating a more predictable environment for businesses, particularly for small and medium-size businesses, and we are freeing entrepreneurs from the burden of regulatory red tape.
It is all part of our plan for Canada. I certainly invite hon. members across the way to join me in supporting the bill we are speaking about today. It will help us to further eliminate unnecessary rules and costs that have been the source of frustration for business people and entrepreneurs across this country, and it will bolster Canada's strong reputation as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business and to invest.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, if I did not know any better, I would say the member had the wrong speech from the Prime Minister's Office. He is talking about the government's economic action plan and jobs and so forth, and many of the numbers he has put on the record I would challenge. However, I will issue him the ultimate challenge in an area where the government has not been very successful, and that is the whole issue of debt reduction. The government has not been able to balance a budget despite being very clear that it wants to be able to show that it can.
Given the type of speech the member gave, I would question the government's inability to issue a national budget at a time when there are issues affecting confidence in Canada's economy. The Prime Minister has let Canadians down by postponing a budget indefinitely. Could the member explain why he thinks the Prime Minister has disappointed Canadians in that fashion?
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member would dispute the numbers of the World Economic Forum and the organizations I referenced, who are bringing forward these numbers, including Stats Canada. It is interesting that the Liberal Party would disagree with these numbers.
With regard to the budget, I can guarantee that we will continue to bring in budgets that will foster economic growth in this country. We will continue to lower taxes for small business. We will continue to reduce taxes for Canadian families.
We know the Liberals have not put out any policy on much, but we do know that they will raise taxes, that they will raise the debt, that they will raise the deficit and they impose a level of taxation that will be unsustainable for Canadian businesses and Canadian families.
Djaouida Sellah NDP Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague on the other side of the House, but I did not hear him talk about anything relevant to small and medium-sized businesses.
I visited SMEs in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, and business owners all agree that unnecessary red tape hurts them financially and causes them to lose valuable time.
Why do the Conservatives not eliminate regulations that are not in the public interest, unless it is because these regulations serve their own interests? I would like a straight answer from my colleague on the other side of the House.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think the member probably missed the opportunity to listen to the speech, because it was centred around the one-to-one rule that will now be legislated.
It is interesting, because she asks about the unnecessary burden of red tape, and I agree. As a matter of fact, when I sat on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, what we heard from Canadian businesses was that it is a costly endeavour to comply with the red tape that is required at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. It is estimated that it costs businesses across the country about $31 billion to comply with regulation across jurisdictions on an annual basis. This is an incredible burden.
What the NDP, even in this debate, has reinforced time and time again is that it wants to see more red tape. It opposes the one-to-one rule. The one-to-one rule would actually require, as the member calls for, the removal of unnecessary red tape. If a new regulation is brought forward, one would have to be taken away, one that is no longer necessary, so that these small businesses would not have to comply with unnecessary red tape.
I believe that the member desires to see red tape reduced. That is why I call on her to split from her party and actually vote for the bill, which would reduce the amount of red tape for small businesses in her constituency.
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead. I will therefore be speaking for just 10 minutes, in order to leave him the other half of my 20 minutes.
I have the honour today to address my colleagues, and those who are kind enough to be watching us on CPAC, on the subject of Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.
I would recall at the outset that for a long time, the government called this its bill to reduce—and not to control—red tape. We can already see that there has been some backsliding with respect to the government’s real intent to deal with the problem.
Over the last seven years, a number of ministers have made numerous announcements at various locations in Canada, with much fanfare, to express how eager the government was to attack the administrative burden. The Conservatives said they wanted to reduce what they called “red tape”. They made it into a major obsession, which has unfortunately produced very little in the form of Bill C-21.
However, this is an important issue, not to say a major problem. Roughly $30 billion in time and costs are imposed on SMEs and entrepreneurship in general in Canada with forms and various other requirements. That is a lot of money. For an SME or a business, the situation is even worse in terms of its resources.
When you have more than 100, 125, 200 or 300 employees, you can set up human resources or administrative services where people can focus on administrative requirements. The business thus becomes more efficient, and in proportion to the company’s overall operations, such requirements pose less of a problem.
However, for the owner of a small business that has generated 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 jobs through hard work, whenever a form or a request from a public servant appears, it is always handled by a single person: the small business owner. It is a heavy burden, especially for small businesses and microbusinesses. It is also a burden for medium-sized businesses, but it is even more serious for small and microbusinesses.
We have to deal with this problem, because 98% of our active businesses in Canada have fewer than 100 employees. Ninety-eight per cent. The category includes people who work very hard and have created jobs, but do not yet have sufficient turnover to have human resources and administrative departments. These people have to shoulder the administrative burden themselves.
Sixty-four per cent of employees in the private sector work in an SME; 64% of people in Canada who are not employed by provincial governments or the federal government work in an enterprise with fewer than 100 employees.
This is the sector of the Canadian economy that creates and maintains the most jobs, and it is these enterprises that have to come up with most of the $30 billion invested in time and trouble because of good old red tape.
In addressing this major and important issue, we unfortunately have serious problems with respect to the bill that is before us at third reading today. The bill embodies the government’s desire to apply the one-to-one rule, which is designed to eliminate a regulation for every new regulation made by the government.
I do not know how many times I have to drive this home. The one-for-one rule always gives nothing more than zero. We are faced with a solution whereby the sum total of what was to be an attack on red tape to liberate Canadian businesses still amounts to nothing more than zero. That is the major solution offered by this bill.
A few weeks ago, we were fortunate to have Kevin Page with us in Parliament. He gave a speech to my colleagues and me. He made a very accurate observation to the effect that when there is a complex issue, someone always thinks of a simple solution. The problem is that it is often a very bad solution.
When I think about the one-for-one rule, I cannot help but think about what Mr. Page said that day. That is exactly what we have here: a simplistic measure.
Another problem with this bill is that the President of the Treasury Board could decide to eliminate regulations. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka is currently President of the Treasury Board and his record is not entirely spotless when it comes discretionary decisions. Take for example, the $50 million invested in gazebos in Ontario when the G20 leaders were visiting.
It is a serious problem when a bill places so much power in the hands of a single representative of government, particularly when the person who currently holds that position does not have a completely spotless record when it comes to discretionary decisions.
The Conservatives also have a poor track record with respect to workplace health and safety, and the bill says nothing about the environment.
We would not want Bill C-21, which gives the government power to tinker with forms and abolish regulations, to be exploited by a government with a very bad track record. Just think about the train tragedies that have occurred in recent years in Canada. The regulatory management that preceded those accidents was part of the problem, and it was the Conservative government that was in charge. We would not want Bill C-21 to be used to do away with regulations that are for the common good or important for the environment.
The NDP would like the report to contain clear obligations on how we will ensure accountability in how the government will use this law and in how the stakeholders will be consulted before a regulation is eliminated. It would be very important to give that responsibility to an organization and not just to the President of the Treasury Board.
However, the nine amendments presented by my colleagues in committee were all rejected. That is just another problem with this bill, which seeks to address an important issue. We need to cut red tape, but we do not want to adopt a solution that has no effect. It is therefore difficult for parliamentarians to determine whether this is a worthy bill.
In short, according to a document produced by Industry Canada, red tape decreased by about 11% between 2005 and 2008. The report concluded that employment trends and the decrease in workers' compensation claims were the primary causes. This shows how complex the situation is.
If people are being injured at work and there is no job stability, even if we reduce the administrative burden, we will not decrease red tape. If business owners are constantly having to replace employees and if these employees are getting injured every three days, there will be no decrease in red tape. Business owners will have to deal with all kinds of hassles. This is a much bigger and more complex problem.
There are solutions, but they would require a lot more work and co-operation. For example, Belgium is working on digital solutions. Business owners send their papers in electronically, so they are not forced to send them every time a government official has a question.
Furthermore, some European countries have created statuses for microbusinesses. These countries are trying to cut red tape for people who are getting into business and who have only about 10 employees. These companies get a special tax status to make their lives easier. There are solutions that would have an impact.
Those solutions are not in this bill, and it has a number of problems. I will have to continue to think on this bill.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.
Bill C-21 is yet another bill in which the government passes off fluff for action. It is as if the government has created itself as Don Quixote and is going to go after windmills called red tape.
The government has systematically attacked the basic systems that are in place to ensure a viable economy. One example is its attack on the environmental legislation, which stripped all of the water protections, and the government's dumbed-down idea that it would somehow make it easier to get the pipelines approved. Then it has run into one bit of opposition after another because there are no clear rules in place.
The Conservative government is afraid to bring in a budget. It cannot have a plan and cannot even count the money, and yet it has created this false attitude that it is going after red tape.
Could my hon. colleague tell me why he thinks we are wasting time on a bill like this flop, rather than dealing with clear issues like the budget and protecting citizens?
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He shares my concerns.
I said before that we fear that this legislation, which can be used to play around with the regulations, might be exploited once it gets in the hands of the Conservatives. We saw them do this with the environment. For example, I do not know how many hundreds of rivers were protected in Canada. Now there are hundreds that are no longer protected. My colleague shares my concerns.
The other part of the problem is the incredible inaction on the part of this government when it comes to finding real solutions that could help small businesses. Taxes have been greatly reduced for big business.
However, practically no tax cuts have been given to SMEs. The opposite should have happened over the past seven or eight years. Why? Because when we give SMEs some breathing room, then they are less likely to take their money and invest it somewhere in Asia or who knows where. They are more likely to create jobs. That is what the government should have done.
Again, this is a meaningless solution for SMEs. Nonetheless, there are some really great structural solutions that would truly help SMEs, which the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing for.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think the reality must be the same in my colleague's riding.
Red tape is not the only problem small businesses are facing. In my riding, what I have seen and what entrepreneurs have told me is that people have lost seasonal employees because of the cuts to employment insurance. Those entrepreneurs have had a hard time getting workers to come and fill an essential need. There are plenty of ways to hurt businesses in addition to harassing them with endless red tape.
I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to employment insurance reform, which is totally out of touch with what is going on in so many industries, particularly in eastern Canada and Quebec. That is certainly causing problems. It also relates to another comment I had.
If circumstances are such that a business has to hire new employees every six months, there could easily be a shorter form for when employees are replaced. However, if the form has to be changed every time, that will result in more paperwork, not less. It is like I was saying before.
There is another unbelievable phenomenon happening in my riding. It is so hard to manage the innovation tax credit that a significant proportion of small and medium-sized businesses no longer bother to claim it and have given up on some of their efforts to innovate.
In many cases, it is medium-sized businesses, not small ones, that have managed to keep claiming the tax credit. I have asked them if it is that hard for them to do. They have told me that the administrative hassle costs them between 30% and 35% of the amount they get back. I have asked them if there is really more paperwork. They have told me no, but the government checks and double-checks their answers, and they have to call an official 18 times, and the official challenges everything they submit.
Officially, the program does not involve any more red tape. However, the program is now managed in such a convoluted way that small businesses are, for the most part, abandoning their efforts to innovate. That is really bad for the country's economy in the medium and long terms. There are all kinds of examples like that one.
Once again, Bill C-21 is a long way from fixing this problem.
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, the subject today affects many more businesses across Canada than we might think.
I am simply going to take the example of the manufacturing sector, which plays a key role in Canada. It once accounted for 65%, but it is now 50%; it is declining somewhat. In that segment, we find not just companies with 500 or more employees. From one end of my riding to the other, there are companies with five or 15 or 50 employees. These manufacturing entrepreneurs need an appropriate operating framework. They have enough competition at the international level. Today, no sector of economic activity, whether in Canada or elsewhere on the planet, can be exclusive to one region, one riding or one country any longer. Everything is global these days. You produce something, a natural resource, and it can be processed or manufactured anywhere on the planet.
I am talking about the manufacturing sector, but there are other sectors such as agriculture or retail, which now has to adjust to e-commerce. What is needed is a genuinely flexible framework. Bureaucracy and red tape, as it is called today, are certainly part of operating a business. However, I have sometimes had businessmen or businesswomen tell me that they had to spend one day a week doing nothing but administration. They had to fill out reports: one for the environment, another for workers’ compensation, because there is also bureaucracy at the provincial level. Put it all together and it adds up to a lot. People have to be able to operate their businesses in a sound environment and, most importantly, a competitive environment.
Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, is intended as a response from this Conservative government to the Canadians and the small and medium-sized businesses that have often voiced their concerns about the expanding administrative burden that regulations impose on the cost of doing business in Canada. If we want to prosper, we must really have an attractive framework.
The government therefore wants to institute the one-for-one rule. As my colleague said earlier, plus one minus one equals zero. You do not have to be very good at mathematics to understand that calculation: 1 - 1 = 0. However, the one-for-one rule must not interfere with public health or safety. There is an environmental framework and a framework for public health and safety. It applies mainly to employees but can also relate to the cleanliness of food processing. This must all be as transparent as possible.
Once again, they are going to give a minister, Mr. Gazebo, some latitude, rely on his judgment, and trust him to reduce administrative burdens and make decisions about this subject. I am sorry, but the Conservatives and Liberals really do not have a good track record in this regard, particularly when it comes to regulations that protect Canadians’ health and safety. I stress this again. We have seen very clearly the disastrous consequences for the environment and public safety that deregulation has had for the Canadian public in recent years.
Regulations that are in the public interest should be retained, of course. What needs to be done is to closely monitor the aggravating factors and the factors that are mitigating and user-friendly for businesses and business owners.
Bill C-21 seems to disregard that obligation. We would have liked to have assurances that deregulation will not apply to regulations that affect health and safety and, most importantly, the environment.
If the Conservatives really wanted to help small businesses, they would have supported the NDP’s proposal to create an ombudsman position to deal with issues such as the excessive credit card fees that the big banks unfairly charge merchants. This is an ineffective injustice that my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has been battling vehemently since he first came to the House.
Small and medium-sized businesses create most of the new jobs in Quebec and Canada, not only in the major centres, but also outside the urban areas. In addition, small businesses make those regions thrive. Unfortunately, small businesses and the regions outside urban areas get very little attention from this Conservative government. The Prime Minister and his key ministers have completely ignored them at the expense of big businesses, the ones that have been given billions of dollars in tax cuts. We see what happens when you favour a single sector of economic activity, with the price of oil falling. The Conservatives find themselves in a precarious position, making it up as they go. They are no longer even capable of producing a budget in real time, something that is essential to help Canadian business owners across the country.
I talked about the fiscal and administrative environments as well as the actual environment. When someone operates a business, we want them to do so in a way that respects the environment. Of course, the government also deregulated that. It said it would let project proponents self-regulate. Canada is one of the only countries in the world that lets everyone do almost whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. Furthermore, the provinces have tried to protect themselves when it comes to natural resources, just in case the federal government is unable to impose an environment that is not highly regulated, but that people respect.
Thinking clearly about what is happening also means having a healthy, clear and successful framework. I am thinking of future generations. That is what is so aggravating about this. Future generations do not have an environment in which they will be able to develop our natural resources without polluting. If you add this to our changing demographics and our aging population, it is going to be a disaster. We were talking earlier about renewing our workforce. Businesses have a real challenge on their hands. The workforce, the next generation, the men and women who want to be part of this prosperous Canada should have the opportunity to do so, and they should be able to run businesses even in areas where crops cannot be grown as they once were here in Canada. There are areas where climate change is preventing people from farming the same way they did in the past.
The regulatory framework in which most businesses in Canada will operate is made up of nearly 2,500 regulations spread over more than 15 departments. These cover everything from agricultural businesses to R and D companies researching the energy of the future. Business people across Canada need to dedicate a huge amount of time, money and consultation to complying with these regulations.
At present, red tape is preventing the collective growth of entrepreneurship. The need to prove that they comply with regulations by collecting, processing and retaining information, preparing reports and filling out forms is such that it discourages many people from actively taking the reins of businesses across the country. I talked about demographic changes. That will be the result if there is not an appropriate framework.
This small bill, which is truly small, contains about 11 clauses. In actual fact, there are only four. It is a question of semantics. It does not address the real problems, which cause quite a few headaches for Canadian entrepreneurs.
In closing, it is not until the NDP comes to power in 2015 that things will change and entrepreneurs will prosper.
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
February 3rd, 2015 / 4:25 p.m.
Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.
Conservative
Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the member opposite that I really enjoyed his speech. He was all over the map, just like his party is on this issue.
On one point, we had a member get up previously to say how filling out EI forms is red tape, yet the NDP is constantly saying that it supports having a strong EI system so that people can get the help they need. We try to balance everything so that at the end of the day, entrepreneurs can do what they do best, which is build their businesses.
However, I will just come back to this member in particular.
First of all, the NDP has been completely unclear as to whether or not it is going to support this bill. Could that member show some leadership and please say yes or no? Could he say whether the NDP will be supporting or not supporting the bill?
Second, the NDP claims to be the party that supports evidence-based decision-making. The one-for-one rule has reduced 250,000 man-hours of work that entrepreneurs needed to do in order to submit forms to the federal government. It has saved over $30 million. Does the member realize that the administrative burden is decreasing on small business or not?
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the math, you will really have to bring the Conservatives up to speed because the one-for-one rule always equals zero.
Although my colleague says that $30 million has been saved with a bill such as this one, that is surely not enough to save the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost after the economic downturn. That is a fact. It means that they did not do enough.
The NDP will be the only party to do enough to restore Canada's international reputation.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention and the wisdom of the advice that he offered to this chamber, especially in the face of some of the rather insulting questions that came from the other side.
In particular, I want to ask him to expand a bit more on the fact that if the government was convinced that it could reduce red tape and could get rid of useless regulation, why has it not done it? Why does it need to bring in another bill, with more regulations, at more cost to government, and with more delay? Why is it that the current government just cannot get the job done?
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, business owners tell us that it is always the same story: the federal government keeps asking them for more. What they want is less. One-for-one will always equal zero. Zero does nothing to help business owners who want to their businesses to prosper.
As I said, international competition is fierce. Business owners want to keep their businesses, they want their businesses to remain prosperous and they want the regions across Canada to thrive and contribute to Canada's economic prosperity. However, that is not what is happening at all.
Earlier we heard about employment insurance. Are members aware that it is not eight out of ten but just three out of ten applicants who receive the EI they are entitled to? That is because the decisions almost always have to be appealed. It is always a long administrative process. In the end, people get discouraged and give up. That is not what we want for Canadians across the country
Red Tape Reduction ActGovernment Orders
February 3rd, 2015 / 4:30 p.m.
Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.
Conservative
Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the member gets really jumpy when we ask him to make a decision. Does he support a reduced burden upon small business?
The previous member who asked him a question gave him the biggest softball I have ever seen. Does the member realize that this bill would enshrine a policy that has been enacted by the government for two years, saving entrepreneurs over 200,000 hours and over $30 million collectively? Would the member stand in his place and say whether or not he supports small business, yes or no?
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think that the member has spent far too much time in his senior minister's gazebo.
That is not what business owners across Canada are telling us at all. They are telling us that we need to be aggressive about the current situation. This means cutting red tape for them. That is not what is happening. the government wants to reduce the administrative burden. I can confirm that. We support that goal, but not with a bill like this one. This bill does not do anything meaningful to ease the burden on administrators and accountants.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, Employment; the hon. member for York South—Weston, Rail Transportation.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas.
I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-21 because this gives me an opportunity to talk about how important small businesses are to me and my riding and about why we should support them.
Specialized industries and big businesses should not be the only beneficiaries of our desire to support our economy. We need to recognize that small businesses are central to our economy. I will explain why. Small businesses are one of our biggest drivers of economic growth. We have to help them thrive. Small businesses already account for nearly half of Canada's GDP, and they are responsible for close to 60% of all jobs in Canada as well as 75% of net new jobs. When the economy is in a downturn and fewer jobs are being created as we lose big companies, small businesses are the ones making a difference and creating jobs, especially in rural and remote areas. As a result, they are very important and create 75% of net new jobs.
We in the NDP believe that SMEs should be a priority for any federal government, because they directly support job creation. That is why we proposed reducing the small-business tax rate from 11% to 9% during the last federal election. That measure directly targeted SMEs. We also proposed other simple, concrete measures to help SMEs. For instance, we proposed expanding the hiring tax credit for small businesses. The Conservatives cancelled it in 2014, which was really sad to see, because it meant taking away a tax credit that created jobs and helped people enter the workforce. There are 1.3 million unemployed Canadians. Eliminating this kind of hiring credit that created jobs was a move in the wrong direction. At the same time, in the most recent budget, the Conservatives spent $500 million to implement measures that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will create only about 800 jobs. Clearly, that is not a good investment.
Furthermore, youth unemployment is very high. It is actually double the national average. We need to take a closer look at that in order to reverse that trend. Everyone knows that our youth are Canada's future. As parliamentarians, we have to invest in their future. That is why we proposed a tax credit worth up to $2,000 for hiring young people, in order to help businesses train young people aged 18 to 25 and provide them with good jobs.
In addition to all of that, as part of our campaign to make life more affordable, we proposed ways to reduce operating costs for our retailers and merchants, by directly tackling the anti-competitive credit card fees imposed by credit card companies. The Conservatives introduced a voluntary code of conduct recently, but that is not enough to reduce credit card transaction fees. We in the NDP are concerned about the excessive fees that businesses have to pay, since they can amount to 1, 2 or 3% of sales.
The exorbitant fees charged by credit card companies do not help our communities. That is money that comes directly out of our communities and will not be reinvested. A ceiling needs to be imposed to make these fees more equitable for the companies, but especially for our merchants. That would be fairer to the families who are trying to make ends meet.
These proposals truly support the entrepreneurs in my region whether they have just started their company or have been in business for decades. I travel around my riding and talk about these proposals, which are very well received by the Vallée de la Petite-Nation chamber of commerce and the chamber of commerce and industry of Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, Mirabel and Argenteuil. These proposals will directly affect business owners in my riding.
In a riding like mine, a big part of the economy is based on agriculture and agri-food, and most of the business owners work in that field as well. These farmers are at the heart of our rural areas and a job creation strategy in the rural areas and small communities. I wanted to point that out because we have to think beyond taxes and red tape. We also have to think about what we can do to encourage and support our farmers.
The bill before us, Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, is meant to reduce red tape for businesses. The Conservatives are proposing to do that by giving more power to the Treasury Board. That is where they start to take away the SMEs' power to create jobs.
We still want to find ways to reduce the administrative burden on SMEs and allow them to focus on what they do best, namely growing their business and creating jobs. However, the NDP wants to prevent the government from eliminating rules regarding health, food safety, transportation safety, management systems and the environment. It is not unreasonable to ask the government to protect the environment, workers and our food.
We are concerned that the measures introduced to concentrate power in the Treasury Board are not steps in the right direction. We do not trust that the Conservatives will do a good job. In closing, I will provide two examples.
First, in the October 2013 budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, the Conservatives made changes to the Canada Labour Code in order to gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. They are directly compromising Canadians' health and safety.
Second, they do not necessarily want to reduce red tape because they increased the paper burden with the Building Canada fund. We do not know how they can be trusted. When they have the opportunity to take occupational health and safety seriously, they do not do so, and when they say that they want to reduce red tape, they make more for our municipalities, which also create jobs.
For all those reasons, I cannot support this bill.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member made a great deal of reference to small businesses and how we should support them, and she referred to taxes and so forth.
Last fall the federal government came up with its so-called initiative, the small business job credit program, which in a bizarre way encouraged some small businesses to look at laying off staff.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party came up with the EI premium exemption, which was widely accepted outside of political circles as a program that would have generated tens of thousands of jobs for every region of the country. The NDP balked at the Liberal proposal back then, and we raised concerns with respect to what degree the New Democrats were committed to supporting small business.
This is a fairly small and relatively insignificant bill in terms of moving forward on dealing with regulations. However, from what I understand, the small business community has come out in support of the legislation.
My question for the member is this. When the small business community supports the legislation as a small step forward, why would the NDP not support that initiative?
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have a lot of time to consider that, but I believe that it is simply because we do not trust the Conservatives when it comes to Canadians' health and safety.
Why would we trust them to abolish regulations? We have to give SMEs more power to create jobs, but we have to do that by investing in them, as I clearly outlined in my speech. That is what SMEs really want.
I always find it interesting to hear the Liberals talk about employment insurance. We must remember that they raided the employment insurance fund. Honestly, in a riding like mine, many seasonal workers must now live with the consequences. They are told that there is no more money in the fund or that they will not have access to it, or they are treated as though they have not been looking for work. It is very insulting.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech and on the excellent work she is doing for her constituents and small businesses, as she explained. She has been travelling around her riding, which is her job, and meeting with chambers of commerce.
She talked about what would help small businesses, and it is not this little bill, which is a real joke, a total farce. It is a fraud, actually. It will not really cut red tape. Yes, we need to cut red tape, but we also need to help small businesses.
The member did a good job of explaining several concepts, and I would like her to clarify how we, the New Democrats, can help small businesses. What is the NDP's plan for helping small businesses?
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that the Conservatives know what they could be doing. They cancelled the hiring tax credit for small businesses. We wanted to enhance it because it would have created direct jobs.
It would be easy for the government to change the credit card fees that big corporations charge businesses, and that would have a direct impact not only on businesses but on all Canadians.
Regulation is not bad in and of itself, but the Conservatives see it that way. Unfortunately, that attitude has gotten us into some difficult situations. For example, if the rail safety reports produced by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had been implemented, then what happened in Lac-Mégantic could have been avoided.
This aversion to regulations is actually a threat to the health and safety of Canadians. We have reached the point where we can no longer trust the Conservatives. We have no choice but to oppose this bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are allergic to regulations. This should not be about getting rid of regulations; it should be about finding the best way to protect Canadians and create jobs at the same time.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker I also have the pleasure of speaking to Bill C-21, which addresses the administrative and financial burden imposed on our small and medium-sized businesses. This is quite clearly a matter that affects all of us, because we all have such businesses in our communities.
In my constituency of Chambly—Borduas, I belong to two chambers of commerce and industry: the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du bassin de Chambly, and the Chambre de commerce et de l'industrie de la Vallée-du-Richelieu. The latter is an example of one of the newest and fastest-growing chambers of commerce in Quebec, and indicates what a strong upswing we are currently enjoying.
With respect to the Chambly chamber of commerce, we also know that with assistance from the Quartier Dix30 centre, good work is being done to promote the services available in the regions and municipalities in the Chambly basin.
When you talk to these people, you can be sure that they will all tell you the same thing, regardless of where they come from, their riding or the circumstances on the ground. They all want us to reduce the tax burden and cut red tape. If we are going to do that, however, we have to do it right. When I talk about doing it right, the example that comes to mind does not involve small and medium-sized businesses, but it says a lot about the approach taken by the Conservatives. I am referring to the report of the parliamentary budget officer of the time, which talked about cuts the Conservatives had made. They said they had to reduce the size and cost of government. They talked about austerity, and so on. We realized, and the parliamentary budget officer demonstrated this, that because of these cuts, we reduced services to citizens but did not really reduce the size of government, improve its efficiency, or actually reduce costs all that much.
When we consider this example, we realize that we all want the same thing. We all want to reduce an unnecessary burden. At the same time, however, it has to be done in an intelligent and effective way. We supported Bill C-21 at second reading and it went to committee. Some 12 amendments were proposed, but none was accepted. The very purpose of those amendments was to make our approach more coherent.
As my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel so rightly put it, regulation in itself is not a bad thing. We just need regulation that is intelligent. For example, when we talk about the safety of a company’s employees, the safety of Canadians, health, protection of the environment and all such matters, these are things we want to improve, things that must be in place and must be properly managed and regulated. However, at the same time, we have to find ways of reducing the tax burden.
The problem with Bill C-21 is not only that there is no oversight of those issues, but also that the bill gives the president of the Treasury Board too many discretionary powers. From what we have seen, the current President of the Treasury Board is incapable of making good decisions that effectively reduce the existing burden of our small and medium-sized businesses.
In terms of reducing the tax burden, it is important to raise a number of points to confirm and explain the NDP's approach to this issue. I had an opportunity to raise these points with the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du bassin de Chambly. About 100 people attended a conference that I offered to the entrepreneurs of part of my riding to explain our approach. First and foremost, this approach involves reducing taxes for small and medium-sized businesses. We often talk about this, and it is extremely important.
The example that proves that we can walk the talk is Manitoba. After five majority NDP governments, the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses is 0%. That speaks volumes about our approach. We realize that they are the economic driver of our communities. We must legislate or not legislate—or, in this case, impose or not impose legislation—accordingly.
The other issue is the hiring tax credit. This measure was introduced by this government, but unfortunately it was cut in the last budget. We wanted to see a new and improved version of it. We even used it as a basis for a proposal that I had the chance to make a little over a year ago with my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. We proposed a similar tax credit that also applied to the hiring of young people. After all, there is a problem not just with youth unemployment, but also with youth underemployment.
A Statistics Canada report indicated last year that an increasing number of well-educated young people are struggling to find work that matches their qualifications and talents. We proposed providing a tax credit to SMEs to create new jobs, not just replace their employees with younger workers.
The credit sought to encourage growing businesses to hire and train young workers, who would become contributing members of our communities and our economy for the future. This is just as important for the SMEs as it is for everyone in our communities.
After all, we can see a domino effect among young people. When families of consumers settle outside urban centres, that leads to new businesses and new schools in the area and to all sorts of positive effects that contribute to our communities. I have seen this in my constituency, which has some of the fastest-growing municipalities in Quebec. There are growing numbers of young families where I live.
We are not just talking about a tax credit to reduce the tax and administrative burden on small and medium-sized businesses; we are also talking about the notorious credit card fees. We talk about that all the time. The Conservative government is happy to rely on a voluntary code of conduct for these companies, which means that we have to rely on the good faith of these companies. That very rarely translates into concrete results.
The measures the NDP is proposing are the result of consultations with the small and medium-sized businesses that come to see us in our constituencies and in Ottawa. They come to see the NDP members and the members from all the other parties to tell us that this code of conduct is not working.
This is a concrete way of minimizing the burden that would not require major changes and that the government could implement very quickly. It would put substantial shares of profits into the pockets of small and medium-sized business, which in turn would contribute to job creation and economic growth in our regions and our communities.
There is also the question of the different employment insurance schemes. Here again, we saw a ridiculous proposal from the government. It proposed astronomical spending to create very few jobs, while at the same time dipping into the employment insurance fund to finance this measure, as the Liberals did before the Conservatives.
The employment insurance fund belongs to the employees and employers. Spending those funds in such a cavalier manner for the sake of good headlines on the eve of an election is not a very intelligent approach. They tell us that this bill is a step in the right direction, when all it does is give more powers to the President of the Treasury Board.
I will repeat what some of my colleagues have already said. We can no longer trust in the Conservatives’ approach. We have a plan for small and medium-sized businesses. When I interact with entrepreneurs, because I participate regularly in the activities of the chambers of commerce in my constituency, they tell me that they fully support that approach. We are going to continue to fight for it in the House.
We cannot support an approach that so far has not worked and has not produced the desired results. That is why we put forward our proposals.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member made a good point when he talked about the importance of regulations, whether they be health and safety or environmental regulations. Health, safety and the environment are important reasons why we have regulations.
Many regulations complement Canada's ability to export products. We spend a lot of time talking in this place about small businesses. Regulations with respect to the qualify of our food products enable us to export much more. There is no doubt that regulations are of great value.
My question for the member relates to the literally tens of thousands of regulations. Surely to goodness the member would acknowledge that at least one regulation has become somewhat dated. From what I understand, the small business community in Canada has tentatively looked at the legislation and has said that it is not perfect. It is far from perfect. The member said that he supported the bill at second reading to try to get some amendments made to it.
The bill is a small step and one we are not overly encouraged about. Why would the member oppose the bill if it is at the very least a small step that small business seems to like?
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We could definitely do a lot to alleviate some of the burden on small and medium-sized businesses.
There are some important regulations. The problem we have is that when we talk about safety, security or those good regulations, for lack of a better way of putting it, we have to regulate intelligently. There is no reason to trust the Conservatives. The President of the Treasury Board up to this point has not proven himself able to appropriately deal with more power.
The best example in the legislation is the one-for-one rule where one rule is removed for every new rule. We are being asked as legislators to take it on blind faith that the one-for-one rule will be applied appropriately when there is no guarantee that the government will not touch rules and regulations as it has done in the past, whether it was with respect to rail safety or food safety, issues that affect our everyday lives. No small or medium-sized business, no constituent of mine and definitely no constituent of any member of the House would see us get rid of those rules and regulations.
We definitely agree that something needs to be done about regulations. However, we will not find the proper solutions by letting the President of the Treasury Board go nuts on this. We will find the proper solutions by putting forward concrete proposals that will really alleviate the burden on small and medium-sized businesses in our country.
Djaouida Sellah NDP Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and almost-neighbour from Chambly—Borduas.
I know that he works hard, since I have seen him first-hand, and I thank him for his relevant and logical speech.
In their 2014 budget, the Conservatives acknowledged that the transaction fees imposed on Canadian businesses were among the highest in the world and they promised to take action.
The result is that credit card companies only have to take measures on a voluntary basis. We have learned over the years that the Conservatives love self-regulation and allowing businesses to implement their own measures.
This shows that the Conservatives do not plan on standing up for SMEs and Canadian consumers when it could be detrimental to Bay Street interests.
The NDP called for the creation of an ombudsman to regulate the credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants.
Why does my colleague think that the Conservatives will not accept that suggestion?
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, it would be extremely simple to require credit card companies to eliminate these absurd fees charged to small and medium-sized businesses. It would not take any time, it would not cost much, and an incredible amount of money could be saved. Instead of going into the pockets of the credit card companies, this money would go back to our small and medium-sized businesses and, therefore, to our communities. That is the NDP's vision and that is what we are suggesting.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I stand here to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay.
We are dealing with yet another Conservative game of shadow boxing; that the Conservatives actually understand the economy. It is fascinating that they are talking about helping small business when they cannot even bring a budget into the House because they have stripped the fiscal capacity of the country to the bone. They were going to allow people, through their income-splitting scheme, to claim it even though it had not passed in law. Everything was dependent in their world view on the high oil prices. The government has banked the entire economy, like a drunken gambler, on the roulette wheel of commodities, not understanding that commodities go up and down. A balanced national economy can withstand those. We have done this in Canada for the last 150 years, but we have had a government that has been completely unbalanced.
We saw all the members from the 401 area stand again and again and praise the tar sands, while the manufacturing sector was going down the toilet. Now the Conservatives have suddenly discovered the manufacturing sector.
We are talking about red tape and this chimera the Conservatives have created, that they will slay the red dragon of red tape.
It reminds me of H.L. Mencken. I am sure he is probably glad he is not alive to see that group in action. He said that for every complex problem, there was an answer that was clear and simple and was wrong. We could probably use that to define the Conservative Party over the last hundred years, but definitely under the current government.
Let us look at the issue that for every new regulation we will strip an old regulation. It sounds so simplistic, but what it speaks to is incompetence, the incompetence of the ministers in the various departments who are not overseeing the regulations right now. They think the Muskoka minister is somehow going to be able to handle the thousands and thousands of regulations, and we should trust him to cut through this.
Folks back home will remember that the Muskoka minister was the man who took $50 million in border infrastructure money, when he had only won by 14 votes, and blew it on pork barrel projects of zero significance. Then when he was asked for the paperwork, he claimed there was none. He took taxpayer money, spent it on the gazebos, the sunken boats, the lighthouses, where there are no waterways, created a fake lake, even though we had no need for one, and then said that he did not have any paperwork, which was not true. It was false. There was lots of paperwork. He made the paperwork up himself out of his constituency office and he ran it through the municipalities.
He misrepresented the spending of money. However, under the government, that kind of malfeasance and incompetence is not punished; it is celebrated. He was given the job of being the oversight for all government spending based on that behaviour.
Do not get me wrong, getting rid of red tape that is meaningless is sometimes very important. I live in the little mining town of Cobalt. Our neighbour is Haileybury where all the mine managers live. It had on the books for many years that it was against the law to walk in the streets of Haileybury with a lunch pail. That was to keep the miners from coming and using the local watering holes in Haileybury. That law was never used and it sat on the law books in the municipality for decades and decades. Most Canadians did not realize it until Paul Soles pointed it out on This is the Law in the 1970s. Maybe they got rid of it then. We should get rid of those kinds of regulations.
We would believe that if we had a government where we had ministers who were actually competent and took responsibility, they would be overseeing their departments regularly to see what kind of red tape was no longer needed, such as what has become redundant and where there are two regulations that are working at cross purposes. However, they are not interested in that. They are interested in creating these sideshow chimeras to take attention from the fact that they have mismanaged the economy substantially.
It seems the Conservatives have put their poor finance minister in a bag and have him hidden away. He cannot explain why he cannot add up the money, because he was counting on the high oil prices. Now they are saying that they are going to help small business. We know that is not true.
Let us look at the Conservatives' idea of red tape. Red tape is a particular buzzword for the neocons. They love this. They use red tape all the time, but they never like to talk about the effects of the red tape.
For example, it was under Mike Harris, their great guru, that they were going to privatize Ontario Hydro, which helped create the Province of Ontario as an industrial powerhouse. However, Mike Harris had it in his head that it was brilliant idea to privatize it. He blew it so badly that we are still picking up the pieces. Perhaps the only people on the planet who could mismanage a hydro resource worse than Mike Harris are the Kathleen Wynne Liberals.
We can talk to any senior citizen in the Province of Ontario on the mismanagement of hydro under the present Liberals. It is so corrupt that they spent $1 billion moving two gas plants to save three lazy Liberals their seats. Imagine what a billion dollars would do for the Ontario health economy. There was the privatization guru.
Let us remember 2008, the horrific listeriosis outbreak. How many people died in that outbreak? I believe it was 22 people with 57 confirmed cases. From the internal reports, we learned that the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency, under the government, was being told that it was no longer going to be ensuring the safety of the plants. That was red tape. The government was going to allow the companies to look after themselves, and people died.
Speaking of incompetence, what did the agriculture minister have to say to families who died because the government chose to trust the cattle and beef giants over public safety? He had lots of jokes to make about listeriosis, he thought it was funny. We remember what Conservatives did with their cutting of the red tape.
We have seen debate after debate in the House. I remember in previous Parliaments, when Bill Blaikie was here, there was a brilliant idea, which came from the Liberals originally, to let the rail companies police themselves. We were told that we did not need the oversight, that we could trust the rail companies. A cheesy little rail company running past Montreal and not following all the rules caused a huge rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic and people died because of the lack of oversight. That was the kind of stuff Conservatives were praising, getting rid of red tape.
The Transportation Safety Board came out with its report on Lac-Mégantic and expressed its deep concern about the need for government to have oversight. Speaking of incompetence, the member for Essex was out there blowing off the need for safety, blowing off the need for the report and then saying that he had not even bothered to read the report. People died because of these decisions and he had not bothered to read the report. We know what Conservatives think of red tape.
Some of the newer neocons have their sense of history which begins in 2008 or 2011. I remember when they were talking about the deregulation of the banks when Citibank was the future and Canada could not compete with all our little banks. We were the economic backwater. That was the scheme the Liberals were totally into at the time. We would allow banks to make investments, allow them to take our savings and speculate on the market because that was the way the world was going.
I remember how members were laughing at the NDP, the nanny state NDP, afraid to compete. We were saying that we needed regulations for the banks to protect people's savings. That is a fundamental principle. We stopped the deregulation. When the rest of the world that had followed the neocon-neoliberal route went down the economic toilet, it was staggering to see Jim Flaherty standing and talking about how glad he was that we had regulation. The Conservatives ridiculed regulation as needless red tape, but it saved our economy at the time.
What is some of the other red tape the Conservatives hate? They get backbenchers to stand on their hind legs and beat their chests about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is red tape to them. The Supreme Court is more red tape. God, they hate the Supreme Court ensuring the rule of law interferes with everything.
We have a justice minister who is so incompetent. Speaking of the incompetence of this world, this man has had more recalls of legislation than Ford had with the Pinto. He ignores the legal reviews of legislation, brings it into the House time and time again, and is told it will not pass a charter challenge at the Supreme Court. He bangs his head against the Supreme Court and then is outraged when it says it will not pass a charter challenge and he has to return it. One would think he would be chastened. In the private sector, he would probably be gone if he had that many recalls, but no. Conservatives stand, beat their chests, and go on about that outrageous Supreme Court defending the rule of law.
I see my friend has just entered the chamber, Mr. Enemy of Red Tape, who is going to allow new anti-terrorism measures and all manner of control to CSIS with no oversight, because it is red tape that is protecting the private rights of Canadian citizens, this needless red tape. That is staggering. Conservatives say not to worry, the oversight body is already able to do the job, the oversight body that the Prime Minister appointed, Arthur Porter. Is he still in a Panamanian jail for gun running, money laundering, or fraud? He was a friend of the Prime Minister. He is just one of the many criminals with whom the Prime Minister has chosen to hang around.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, Bruce Carson is another well-known criminal.
Arthur Porter was the man who the Conservatives say was able to oversee CSIS, as they allow it all manner of extra rules that have not been in place before. This is not to say that we do not necessarily need more tools to go after terrorism, but we need the rule of law. To them, that is needless red tape.
Who else was overseeing CSIS? It was the northern gateway lobbyist. What was the lobbyist's name? Chuck Strahl. Chuck Strahl gets parachuted in because he is a party favourite and does not tell anybody he is an Enbridge lobbyist. They have northern gateway, so all the Conservatives are standing and denouncing these terrorists, who as far as I could tell were just ordinary citizens of British Columbia. Was Chuck Strahl getting briefed on the northern gateway, the supposed threat, while he was overseeing CSIS? These are questions. This is the government's idea of red tape.
Getting back to this bill, we see Conservatives stand to speak about red tape all the time, but they do not deliver. I ran a small business for 10 years, and one of the biggest issues of red tape I had to deal with was the Conservatives' beauty of GST-HST, where they had moved the burden from the large corporate bodies down to individuals and small companies. I know that as the economy is tanking and people are trying to get back into the workplace and find other work, HST has to be collected starting at $30,000. That was the rule back in the 1990s.
If a man has lost his job or his wife is wanting to get back into the workforce to do some consulting, hairdressing, web design, or the husband wants to do web design, these are micro businesses that can be grown into small business that may start to employ people, but they have to start paying the HST at $30,000. People really cannot do much at $30,000. I know people who told me they wanted to start small businesses, but if they were only making $32,000 or $33,000, the administrative burden of dealing with the HST actually was not worth it. It simply was not worth going back into the workforce to do that.
A reasonable government would raise the minimum on HST, say, to $50,000 over 20 years, from the 1990s to today. That would be a reasonable move. People could get themselves established. They could find out whether their home project could become viable, whether it is making stained glass, crocheting, or whatever, and then a small business gets established.
With the New Democrats' idea of helping small business, one of the big issues we have been pushing is credit card fees. Talk about needless impediments to small business. Ask any small business owner, such as a taxi cab driver or someone running a small restaurant, about the credit card fees. We will never see the Conservatives deal with this.
Not to speak ill of the dead, but I remember when Jim Flaherty stood and said he was going to go to the banks and deal with all of this. He came back like a chastened altar boy. He was just going to leave it to them.
This is where regulation is important. These sectors of the economy have to be regulated because, if basic rules are not in place, people get ripped off. Government needs to ensure regulation on the credit cards. One of the other things was that they deregulated cable and phone rates. We have among the highest cellphone rates in the world, but they believe that, if they just leave it to business, it will do it. We believe that certain regulations are important, to protect the market and to protect the ability of consumers to have fair play.
In terms of supporting small business, we would say in a time of economic uncertainty, when the Conservatives have literally bet the entire Canadian house on Fort Mac, that we need to ensure that small business can innovate and do its job. Let us drop the tax rate from 11% to 10% to 9%, because we know this money would go directly back into the economy.
Small business reinvests that money all the time, whereas the current government put in large corporate across-the-board tax cuts, believing the theory of trickle-down. We know the only real thing that does trickle down in economics, and it is not money. The Conservatives cut that tax rate on the large corporations, and any economist will say that we have dead money. It is money that the large corporations have taken out, that they are giving in CEO bonuses or putting offshore, that they are not reinvesting. If the Conservatives are going to work with business, they should offer an incentive for innovation. An innovation tax credit makes sense. What we are dealing with here is a bill that would offer nothing to small business, except the false image that they are going to deal with the needless regulations.
I think back to when I was documenting the life of people in my region in terms of the hard-rock mining industry. If they go underground in Stobie Mine in Sudbury, or go underground in Timmins, wherever they walk there will be signs that say not to put one's hands here or not to stand there. An old miner said to me one day that every one of those signs and regulations was paid for in blood. They would only put up a sign telling them not to do something if someone had been seriously injured, not just once but usually two or three or four times, or killed. Those regulations were important. We saw in the mining sector again and again this effort of self-regulation. Allowing companies to do it does not work. There are certain regulations that are important.
How do we deal with the issues of meaningless red tape, contradictory red tape, red tape that has become redundant as the years go on? I would put it back to my colleagues on the government side that this is where they have to ensure a standard that the ministers are going to meet. That is ministerial responsibility. It used to be in the ministerial code. They quietly took out ministerial responsibility. I find that staggering. It is as if they did not want to be on the hook for promoting incompetence. If they are competent, then they will be overseeing their department and regularly bringing forward recommendations of where regulations need to be removed and replaced with ones that work.
What we are dealing with here is just another shadow bill. It is shadow boxing with the economy, when the real issue we are facing is that the Conservatives have stripped the fiscal capacity of this country to the bare bone. The Conservatives do not know what the numbers are. We are getting contradictory numbers in terms of this budget: if they are going to be doing cuts, if they are going to be going into the contingency fund. The Conservatives do not seem to know. They are playing games with the economy, which is not the kind of message for a G7 nation to send.
At a time when we are seeing increasing economic uncertainty in Canada's west, we need to be able to tell small business people that we are going to work with them to kick-start the economy so we can balance the economy and get off this one-industry-only obsession and ensure we have a diversified economy. That is where the New Democrats are coming down on the issue. We would drop the small-business tax rate from 11% to 10% to 9%. The New Democrats would ensure that, when business people make a capital investment, they can write it off quicker. That would help manufacturing.
Some of these ideas have been in previous budgets. The Conservatives and the Liberals have had similar things in the past. However, they have given them up; they are not interested and they have moved on. We say these are the kinds of incentives that we need now, at a time of economic uncertainty.
I am, as always, proud to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay, but less proud to have to deal with bills that simply do not address the needs of Canadians.
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.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
To the government House leader, although it sounds almost as though this is an appeal of my ruling, I heard “on division”. No one stood up. There was only one person who stood up on this side that I saw, so my determination is that it passed on division.
That is my determination. Does the government House leader wish to rise on another point? If not, the member for Burlington is rising on a point.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find, if you ask for it, unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:52 p.m. to allow for the bells to ring for us to begin the vote tonight.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
Does the member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:52 p.m.?
Some hon. members
Agreed.