Bill S-6

An Act respecting regulatory modernization

This enactment amends various Acts as part of the Regulatory Modernization Initiative in order to repeal or amend provisions that have, over time, become barriers to innovation and economic growth or to add certain provisions with a view to support innovation and economic growth.
Part 1 modifies the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to, among other things,
(a) replace the requirement to publish a notice of bankruptcy in a local newspaper with a requirement to do so in the manner specified in directives of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy; and
(b) provide that, if every opposition based solely on grounds referred to in paragraph 173(1)(m) or (n) of that Act is withdrawn, a bankrupt who was eligible for an automatic discharge before the opposition was filed will be issued a certificate of discharge.
It also amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to allow the Governor in Council to authorize the director, appointed under subsection 26(1) of that Act, to establish plans for the verification of meters by any means.
It also amends the Weights and Measures Act to, among other things, enable the Minister of Industry to permit a trader to temporarily use, or have in their possession for use, in trade, any device even if the device has not been approved by the Minister or examined by an inspector.
It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 to, among other things, amend a provision under which certain amendments to the Trademarks Act may be brought into force.
Finally, it amends the Canada Business Corporations Act , the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act by replacing the term “annual return” with the term “annual update statement”.
Part 2 amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to repeal certain provisions that require the publication of draft regulations in the Canada Gazette .
It also amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to
(a) update the terminology in respect of hazardous products in the workplace to ensure alignment and consistency with the Hazardous Products Act ; and
(b) clarify the regulation-making authority with respect to record-keeping requirements for occupational health and safety matters.
Finally, it amends the Canada Lands Surveyors Act to, among other things,
(a) enhance the protection of the public by modernizing the complaints and discipline processes that govern Canada Lands Surveyors;
(b) reduce the regulatory burden of the Minister of Natural Resources by enabling the Council of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors to make by-laws respecting a broader range of matters;
(c) harmonize the French and English versions of the Act for consistency and clarity by, among other things, ensuring uniformity between both language versions in relation to the definitions of “licence” and “permit” and by addressing certain recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations;
(d) improve labour mobility within Canada and to better align with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement; and
(e) harmonize the text of that Act with the private law of the provinces and territories, being the civil law regime of the Province of Quebec and the common law regime in the rest of Canada.
Part 3 amends the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the requirement for the Governor in Council to make and update regulations specifying the animals and plants that are listed as “fauna” and “flora”, respectively, in an appendix to the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora; and
(b) clarify that the prohibitions in subsections 6(1) and 7(1) and (2) of that Act are subject to the regulations.
It also amends the Species at Risk Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to remove a species from Schedule 3 to that Act if the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has assessed the status of the species under section 130 of that Act or has determined that the species is not a “wildlife species” or a “species at risk” as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act;
(b) remove from that Schedule 3 the species that have already been assessed by COSEWIC under that section 130 or determined by it not to be a “wildlife species” or a “species at risk” as defined in that subsection 2(1);
(c) clarify the timelines for preparing proposed recovery strategies and management plans that must be prepared as a result of an assessment under section 130 of that Act; and
(d) repeal Schedule 2 to that Act.
Part 4 amends the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that powers are delegated to a marketing board in relation to the marketing of an agricultural product in interprovincial or export trade by virtue of being named in the schedule to that Act, rather than by Order in Council;
(b) provide that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is responsible for the delegation of those powers;
(c) delegate powers in relation to the marketing of agricultural products to administrative bodies;
(d) provide for limitations and exceptions, that were previously set out in orders and regulations made under that Act, with respect to the exercise of the delegated powers; and
(e) require marketing boards and administrative bodies to make accessible to the persons with respect to which they exercise their delegated powers the requirements or other measures they establish in the exercise of those powers.
It also repeals certain Orders and Regulations.
Part 5 amends the Feeds Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the approval and registration of feed are subject to prescribed conditions and to authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to make the approval and registration subject to additional conditions;
(b) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain feed may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the recognition of a system of any foreign state or subdivision of any foreign state relating to the safety of feeds.
It also amends the Fertilizers Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the approval and registration of a fertilizer or supplement are subject to prescribed conditions and to authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to make the approval and registration subject to additional conditions;
(b) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain fertilizers or supplements may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method;
(c) prohibit the release of novel supplements, except in accordance with the regulations, and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting any such release; and
(d) authorize the Minister to impose conditions on any authorization to release a novel supplement that the Minister may grant under the regulations.
It also amends the Seeds Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain seeds may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method;
(b) prohibit the release of certain seeds, except in accordance with the regulations; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the release of seeds, providing for the determination of varietal purity of seed crops by the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association and respecting the recognition of a system of any foreign state or subdivision of any foreign state relating to the safety of seeds.
It also amends the Health of Animals Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that a notice requiring the removal or disposal of certain animals or things may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method;
(b) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to renew, amend, suspend or revoke a permit or any other document issued by that Minister;
(c) prohibit the release of certain veterinary biologics, except in accordance with the regulations, and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting any such release;
(d) authorize the Minister to approve programs developed by entities other than the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for certain specified purposes and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the approval of such programs;
(e) clarify the circumstances under which an inspector or officer may declare that an infected place is no longer an infected place; and
(f) authorize the Minister to make an interim order if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk to human or animal health and safety or the environment.
It also amends the Plant Protection Act to
(a) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain things may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to renew, amend, suspend or revoke a permit or any other document issued by that Minister.
It also amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to authorize the use of electronic means to administer and enforce that Act and any Act or provision that the Agency is responsible for administering or enforcing.
Finally, it amends the Safe Food for Canadians Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the definition of “food commodity” by specifying that the reference in that definition to the definition of “food” in the Food and Drugs Act is subject to an interpretation provision in that Act;
(b) provide that a notice requiring the removal or destruction of certain food commodities may be delivered by any method that provides proof of delivery or by any prescribed method; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to extend any interim order for a period of no more than two years.
Part 6 amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to create an offence of contravening a term or condition of a licence or permit.
It also amends the Fisheries Act to remove the time limit for entry into an alternative measures agreement by an alleged offender and the Attorney General. Finally, it confirms that the provisions respecting alternative measures agreements do not limit the discretion of fishery officers, fishery guardians and peace officers in enforcing that Act.
Part 7 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 8 amends the Customs Act to authorize the making of regulations aimed at streamlining the implementation of free trade agreements.
Part 9 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to make interim orders to implement international standards or to ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The second thing I want to say is that you mentioned red tape.

On March 31, 2022, when I was the president of Treasury Board, we tabled Bill S-6. It went through the Senate first. It is currently at second reading in the House of Commons.

Bill S-6 includes amendments to reduce the administrative burden for businesses; make digital interactions with government easier; simplify regulatory processes; make exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products; and make cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across government.

I think that's probably music to your ears.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That's great. Thanks.

Actually, I do appreciate that. I was privileged to be president of the Treasury Board, and we looked at the red tape. There is still a lot we can do, and I know that the regulatory group that looks into this had proposed S-6, an act respecting regulatory modernization.

There were things there that could have been...and it's still in the House of Commons. Hopefully we can pass Bill S-6 to help reduce the red tape that exists.

Maybe I'll give a chance to Rosalind Lockyer, if she had something else to add before my time is up, because I know it's almost up.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Value for money is obviously extremely important to everything we do at the Treasury Board, from overseeing $450 billion of expenditures every year to ensuring that we are cutting red tape. That will include ensuring that Bill S-6 goes through committee and hopefully, again, gets passed by the House on third reading.

The financial information in the estimates is presented to support an appropriation bill that seeks parliamentary approval for expenditures that will be incurred throughout the year. Through this supply bill, the government requests Parliament's approval of the planned spending proposals that are detailed in the estimates.

As I briefly outlined in my remarks, the supplementary estimates (A) 2024-25 present $12.7 billion in incremental spending, and that includes $11.2 billion in new voted spending and $1.5 billion in forecasted statutory budgetary expenditures.

I want to highlight that the majority of that funding is through voted expenditures. We will have the opportunity to vote on this funding in the House of Commons.

(Bill C-26: On the Order: Government Orders)

April 19, 2024—Consideration at report stage of Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with amendments—Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-40: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 17, 2024—Third reading of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews)—Minister of Justice.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-6: On the Order: Government Orders)

May 3, 2023—Resuming consideration of the motion of Ms. Fortier (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Ms. Khera (Minister of Seniors),—That Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(Bill S‑9: On the Order: Government Orders:)

December 15, 2023 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Ms. Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs), seconded by Mr. Beech (Minister of Citizens' Services), — That Bill S‑9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-16. On the Order: Government Orders)

June 6 2024—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs of Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation—Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

We recently saw the passing of standardizations within Bill S-6. My understanding, as shadow minister for the Treasury Board, is that this was going to be an annual occurrence, an evaluation of standardizations, with Bill S-6 being the most recent iteration after the pandemic. Of course, the first three or four iterations were focusing, I believe, on the low-hanging fruit.

In your opinion, is the government keeping to their commitment in Bill S-6 and beyond in completing the review of standardizations and the further implementation of broader consultation as the regulation of standardizations for efficiencies continues?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for being here. I appreciated your opening remarks.

I want to commend the Chamber of Commerce for mentioning that regulatory framework or regulatory modernization is really important in reducing the red tape. Funny enough, Bill S-6 is still on the table in the House. Hopefully, members will understand that we should be pushing this, as it would help businesses to continue to reduce the red tape.

I had the privilege of being the President of Treasury Board. That was a bill I presented. I think it's really important that we focus on solutions that are already on the table and continue on that. I just wanted to mention to my colleagues that, when it comes up, let's hope we can support businesses by applying this and voting for Bill S-6.

Currently, the second regulatory modernization has 45 amendments to 28 pieces of legislation. It really could help many of our businesses in the support of innovation and economic growth.

My next question would be for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

In a previous appearance, it was discussed that the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act presented both opportunities and challenges to Canadian companies, particularly in the clean-tech sector. It's obvious that pretending climate change doesn't exist is no longer a viable option for countries that want to remain economically competitive in the 21st century.

Could you please speak to how the investment tax credits provided to Canadian clean-tech firms are helping Canadian firms compete? How can we strengthen that?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I am shocked. In his speech, the member mentioned cutting red tape, and breaking news is that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' Paper Weight Award for the most absurd red tape just went to the Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada and Finance Canada. What do they all have in common? It is the $54-million ArriveCAN app.

The member sat with me on committee yesterday and voted against a common-sense motion to cut red tape, so he is upside down. He obviously wrote his speech two days ago. Could he clarify how the federal government, with Bill S-6 languishing in the House, is actually cutting red tape and making that a priority?

Small Business

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. We stood with small businesses during and after the pandemic, including in terms of reducing credit card transaction fees, establishing a program for small businesses in federal procurement and assisting the tourism sector.

Unlike the Conservatives, who have no plan to reduce red tape, we will continue to stand with small businesses with Bill S-6. It is at second reading. We are bringing it back before the House. We will create an efficient and effective economy for all small businesses.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

No. Collaboration is so important.

When we look at just our parliamentary processes here, we see members trying to delay things, doing 30-hour votes, putting things forward that would move the country forward and then voting against them. Then we come back to them over and over, and now we're discussing them again.

What I'd ultimately like to see is some more clarity on what we're trying to do here because I'm still a bit confused. The motion says, “all sectors in the economy and table a plan within 30 days of this motion”—with no plan being put forward—“being adopted showing reductions in red tape and regulation.” We can go back to Bill S-6. Look the Competition Act. It's an important piece of legislation. We could have already been moving forward on that, but no.

I think right before the break, all of a sudden we were met with over 131 amendments, ultimately. I don't even want to call them amendments. They were political games. I ended up doing 200 push-ups over those 30 hours, though. That was the only benefit I got out of it.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's hard to follow my colleague, who outlined a tremendous number of initiatives already under way that ultimately need collaboration. We talk about collaboration to get things done. I think we've seen here in this committee, and in other committees that I'm involved in, the constant delays from the members opposite, who like to bring forward motions to ultimately not get things done.

As to the premise of it, to my colleague across, I understand it. I used to work in the Government of British Columbia. We actually had a ministry of deregulation. Within four years, I think over 75,000 different pieces of legislation were cut. I think Mr. Sousa mentioned at one point during his intervention that certain regulations are there to protect consumers, to protect Canadians.

There was some fallout from some of the regulations that were deregulated. We saw a real estate industry in British Columbia—in my hometown of Richmond, B.C., and in the greater Vancouver area—that got out of control because of it. We had a real estate industry where constant flipping was coming into play. I know we have an anti-flipping measure that's being placed at this point. We are trying to get those measures in place, but again, there are constant delays from the members across, who are continuing to ultimately just play politics and not let us get things done here and move forward the things that Canadians deserve.

Industries were unregulated to the point that we saw, for example, the issue of the housing crisis, which we're talking about right now and trying to work on collaboratively with every municipality across the country. We had a realty industry that was literally writing up contracts and flipping the contracts, with prices going up by $50,000 a month, creating a false sense of what the market was. Regulation was needed to protect those people.

If we look at some of the other measures we're talking about here, even for Bill S-6 we saw members across during the debate put up speaker after speaker when a simple vote could have taken place.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for entertaining this motion.

I very much thank MP Davidson, who is our shadow minister for red tape, for being here today and for bringing forward this important motion at such an important time. It's at a time when so many Canadians and businesses—small businesses in particular—are suffering. I truly appreciate his being here today at the government operations committee and bringing forward this motion.

I want to provide some statistics in support of this motion. The 2024 Fraser Institute energy sector competitiveness report says, “Overall, the US performs better than Canada in 13 out of the 16 policy factors.” Also, more than half of investors “indicated that uncertainty concerning environmental regulations, regulatory duplication and inconsistencies...were more concerning in Canadian provinces than in US states.”

Mr. Chair, I know that you come from the great province of Alberta, as I do. This province has suffered greatly in its production capacity as a result of this government's red tape initiatives. Thank you for being here today, MP Davidson, on behalf of Albertans as well, to bring this motion forward.

The July 12, 2023, Toronto Sun says, “almost 90% of federal managers received bonuses averaging $17,000 a year [since 2020], even though under half of federal departments and agencies achieve their annual production targets.” One of the targets should be to reduce red tape. We have individuals receiving compensation bonuses when they are not achieving their objectives, and that's another struggle we see against the abundance of red tape.

This is from the January 13, 2024, Toronto Sun:

When Trudeau came to power in 2015, 43,424 federal bureaucrats were collecting a six-figure salary. By 2022, that number more than doubled to 102,761.

The Trudeau government also dished out more than $1 billion in bonuses, despite government departments tripping over themselves while attempting to deliver services.

Next I'm going to bring up a very concerning anecdote regarding children's adoption:

Backlogs within Canada’s immigration bureaucracy are creating what one observer calls an “impossible situation” for families adopting children from outside of the country, with processing delays now far outlasting their children’s visas and rendering the kids ineligible for provincial health coverage....

Children adopted overseas are usually granted a six-month temporary residence permit, essentially a tourist visa, upon entering Canada. That used to be sufficient to allow IRCC to finish processing their citizenship applications. But delays for processing citizenship for adopted kids are now running close to two years, well past the expiry of temporary visas. That is leaving parents scrambling to get extensions and the children ineligible for basic social programs.

Once again we see the government struggling to deliver on the most basic services for Canadians, and for new Canadians in particular, which is no doubt a result of red tape.

Service Canada's passport delays netted CFIB's worst red tape award. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business awarded the 2023 Paperweight Award for worst red tape service to Service Canada's passport mess, something I just alluded to in the example that I indicated regarding adoption. A public opinion poll by the CFIB found that 80% of passport applicants experienced some level of frustration as they applied for or tried to renew a passport in this past year. I know that my NDP colleague will appreciate this statistic given their recent work with CFIB on the CEBA extension. That's an incredible number—80% of passport applicants had dissatisfaction as a result of red tape.

It would be nice to say goodbye to red tape and hello to green, but as the Financial Post notes:

“No fewer than four times on a single page...of her fall economic statement, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, or the anonymous finance...scribe writing for her, says the federal government is intent on cutting red tape.” It's unbelievable.

It goes on:

Only one problem. There are deals with nine cities and one province. The cities have a combined population of just over four million people. So that’s about 10 per cent of the country’s population....

And a second problem: federal-municipal agreements, even to cut red tape, are themselves a form of red tape.

That's unbelievable.

The feds won't just give the cities an opportunity to cut the red tape. We are seeing, time and time again, problems with red tape under this government.

I mentioned the problems this government is causing for our home province, Mr. Chair, of Alberta. I'd also like to point to something positive that's going on in the Confederation regarding red tape. It is that in Alberta, the United Conservative Party has tabled a sweeping red tape bill. Isn't that a beacon of light for the nation? Wouldn't you say so, MP Davidson?

They have introduced a series of new measures that will reduce red tape through an omnibus bill. Wait a minute. Isn't it like the omnibus Bill S-6, which is still with this government and has yet to pass? We are still waiting for Bill S-6 to pass. It's the most simple of red tape cutting, not even innovative red tape cutting, MP Davidson. It's only red tape for low-hanging fruit, simple measures that need to be adjusted to eliminate the most burdensome of the smallest pieces of red tape. They can't even seem to get this through or make it a priority to get it through the government. Now we have the Government of Alberta providing this omnibus bill—which should be an example for this government—that “will change 14 pieces of legislation across nine different ministries”, per the Calgary Herald. My goodness. I think there are more departments involved in the ArriveCAN scandal than there are here that will be affected by this change from the United Conservative government in Alberta.

The article goes on: “Among the most prominent changes”—and I want to continue to provide some ideas for the government here, MP Davidson—“is legislation that includes federal employees under trespassing rules, something...[that] is wanted and necessary”. It notes push-back on “virtue signalling” because it is “clarifying that trespass legislation applies to everyone”. That's the main one listed there, but it also talks about changes to transport funding and to firefighter support. Firefighters have been in to see me on several occasions to talk about different pieces of legislation.

This is Bill 9 that I'm referring to. I really think this government should perhaps take a look at what the provincial government has done in Alberta as just a follow-up to the motion that MP Davidson has suggested here today. An omnibus bill would be wonderful in addition to the request that MP Davidson has made. So would passing Bill S-6. It would be a great little start if they could do this.

Again, I'd like to thank MP Davidson for being here today to present this motion to the committee for its consideration. I hope Canadians across the country will be inspired this week to contact their representatives and ask them to cut just one small piece of red tape, one small bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Just quickly.... Will Bill S-6 actually allow you to draw different processes than you have now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Valdez.

Thank you, Ms. Hart, for that very robust description of all the work you guys do.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end. I do want to take one quick opportunity to ask a question with CFIA and PMRA here.

Certainly when I deal with my agricultural producers at home in Nova Scotia, one of the things they talk about often is competitiveness. I don't know if there's an actual provision within your legislative statute that talks about that, but I think about things like Bill S-6, which is before the House right now and which, I believe, allows and opens the door for both of your agencies to start considering foreign recognition.

Can you tell this committee what is being done through CFIA, whether on crop protection products or certain seeds, when there are demonstrably strong scientific processes from other jurisdictions, to create expedited pathways in Canada?

Mr. Bissonnette, you talked, for example, about how you really have to wait until someone actually comes to apply to Canada, but the evidence that I think many of our colleagues would have at this committee is that many major manufacturers would start in the United States or they'd start in Europe—they'd start in larger markets—before they would even get to Canada, and then we would still have a couple-year process by the time it landed in our lap.

How do we close that gap for competitiveness? Are there ways in which we can use the existing science of other agencies that we trust to expedite our own processes? What work are you guys doing in that domain?

I'll start with CFIA and then go to PMRA.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you very much.

There is in fact a bill under consideration, Bill S‑6, for the modernization of regulations on an annual basis. It has already been through the Senate and is now being considered by the House. It is a key part of the government's work to increase effectiveness while providing measures to protect the environment, consumers, and health and safety. This bill includes 45 changes that I would call “common sense changes”. Their purpose is to reduce the administrative burden on companies, to facilitate digital interactions and to simplify regulatory processes. I know all parties are very keen to reduce the regulatory burden, and I hope we will be able to vote in favour of those changes.

I have in fact discussed this with members of the farming sector who, like people in other sectors, are very keen to see those regulations changed. It would help cut down on the paperwork to be filled out and thereby facilitate their activities. It would allow them to work more effectively.

In Washington last week, I met with representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, from the White House. A number of years ago, Canada and the United States created the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council. The members of that council had not met for some time. So I went to see if there was any interest in the changes we are proposing in particular.

Regulatory issues are constantly evolving. The joint efforts of Canada and the United States in this regard are very significant. We decided to reactivate the council and to examine together what changes could be made specifically regarding supply chains, the environment and climate change, as well as critical minerals.

We're moving forward with that.

The good news is that the members of this council were very receptive at the meetings. I hope we will reactivate the council. The current administration will be there for two more years, and a lot can be accomplished in those two years. I hope to make progress in other areas, including with our partner and ally, which I would describe as “natural” in business. Things are happening with respect to regulations in Canada. Together with the United States, Canada can continue to work on the regulatory framework.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the environment is on all our minds these days as we see images of more than 100 wildfires raging in my home province of Alberta. Thousands of people have had to flee their homes. The provincial government has declared a state of emergency.

As I mentioned in my S.O. 31 last week, such situations as these remind us that the circumstances people endure may be uncontrollable, but we can definitely control our response to them. Canadians understand the need to work together. I am thankful to those across the country who have travelled to Alberta to assist the firefighting efforts.

One of the biggest strengths of our nation is the willingness of Canadians to come together in a crisis. We support each other because that is the Canadian way of doing things. On behalf of everyone in Alberta, I want to thank those from other provinces and territories for standing up to fight the wildfires.

With the environment on our minds, we turn to consider an environmental bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. What is the big rush with this bill? Suddenly, the government is in a hurry to pass this legislation; it has come to the point where the government has to limit debate. I find this somewhat amusing. It introduced pretty much the same bill during the last Parliament, but that one failed to pass because the Prime Minister thought an early election was more important.

Protecting the environment is something Liberals talk about a lot. We have heard them talking about setting targets for carbon emissions. We do not hear them talk about how the government has never met a target that it set for itself. Talk is easy. Doing something seems to be more difficult.

Bill S-5 is the first major overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since the 1990s. Much has changed since then in our understanding of the environment and climate change. The bill is long overdue; however, given the lack of priority the Liberals have given this issue in recent years, I am surprised they feel it is important to limit debate.

When one looks at the legislation, one cannot help but be disappointed. The bill is not really about environmental protection; it is about updating the rules. There is no doubt that many environmental rules need to be updated. Those on toxic substances come to mind. So much can change in 20 years, but there is nothing new here besides vague and undefined promises.

Many pieces of legislation that have come before this House highlight the stark differences in the visions of Canada put forward by the Liberals and the Conservatives. Conservatives put people first, seeking to make the lives of ordinary Canadians better through sensible financial policies. We understand that the government is not supposed to magically create jobs; rather, it should create an environment where the private sector sees opportunities to create jobs.

This bill recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment. It would require the Government of Canada to protect this right, but it would leave it up to the minister to develop an implementation framework and tell us how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA.

Several years ago, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made recommendations regarding national standards for clean air and clean water. I would have expected them to be included in this legislation. Maybe the minister will get around to including them in the implementation framework, but it would have been nice to have them included so that we could see what the government is planning and make some suggestions for improvement, if needed, in the House.

With all due respect to the minister, I am curious as to what is considered a “healthy environment”. In many ways, the concept goes far beyond the scope of this legislation. Does it include the air we breathe? It most certainly does. What about access to clean drinking water? That goes without saying, although I suppose some communities under drinking water advisories would warn us that such a right has not been extended to all Canadians. Is a healthy environment access to affordable, healthy food? If so, where are the provisions to deal with the inflation the government has created? Yes, the bill would deal with toxic chemicals and with obvious environmental hazards, but there is so much more that needs to be done. I will admit to being a little concerned as to what the minister thinks a healthy environment is, and I hope that, when the definition finally comes, it will be science-based and not sprung out of ideological dogma.

As I have mentioned here before, the current government has a habit of making pronouncements highlighting its environmental plans, then not following through. I hope that, this time, its members really mean what they say. Certainly, the legislation is long overdue. We know so much more about the environment, climate change and the need for action than we did 20 years ago.

It is certainly time to modernize Canada's chemicals management plan. I would suspect that, given rapid advances in industry, we may want to take another look at the plan in a few years. As a nation, we need to be proactive, making sure the environment is properly protected rather than waiting for an industrial accident that could cause harm to the environment and to the Canadian people. The risk-based approach to chemicals management proposed in Bill S-5 makes sense to me.

Last week, I spoke in this chamber regarding Bill S-6, which is an attempt to reduce the mountain of governmental red tape that Canadians face. It seems that, everywhere we turn, there are more regulations. It is almost as if they were breeding.

It is important to have regulations regarding the environment. We need to ensure that our air is fresh and our water pure, not just for today, but for future generations. We hold the environment in trust for our children and grandchildren. Sometimes, though, regulations are unnecessary; they add to the mountain of red tape without achieving what they are supposed to achieve. This is why I am please that Bill S-5 sets out to remove unnecessary red tape from our environmental regulations.

We need protections, but they should be necessary ones. Given the limited scope of the bill, I would not be surprised to see more environmental regulations from the government. Chemicals management and toxic substances are not the only areas of environmental protection that are concerning Canadians.

In this House, we are all committed to protecting our environment, although we sometimes differ as to what the best approach would be. Canada remains the envy of the world for our clean water and clean air, as well as the natural beauty of our country. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same healthy environment that we have today. If we can leave our planet and its environment healthier than it was when our parents passed it on to us, then that will be a fitting legacy.

Revisions to our environmental protection laws are long overdue. Perhaps the government has not acted quickly enough, but it is acting. Perhaps the provisions of the bill do not go as far as some would have liked, but the bill is a beginning. It is not the all-encompassing legislation that some would have hoped for. It is a modest beginning that addresses a need. At least it is a start.