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(b) provide that, if every opposition based solely on grounds referred to in paragraph 173(1)(m) or (n) of that Act is withdrawn, a bankrupt who was eligible for an automatic discharge before the opposition was filed will be issued a certificate of discharge.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]

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.

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, tonight, we are looking at Bill S-6, which would not be cutting regulations; it is about modernizing regulations. We missed some opportunities where we could have improved various aspects of Canadian society by actually cutting some regulations and streamlining some other regulations.

This may just be my own childhood and background working in a small business. We had a restaurant and gift shop on the Cabot Trail. We had a lot of tourists come through. My father, who was rather funny, kept getting notices from the Government of Canada. One day, the notice would be about tariffs on T-shirts made in Bangladesh, and another day it would be about something else. He finally decided to start a wall along where people had to wait to get to the washroom. He posted all the notices that we received from the Government of Canada. He then made a lovely sign so he could keep it up to date. It said, “The Government of Canada never sleeps.” Perhaps I have been thinking of it because it is approaching midnight, and I suppose I never sleep, but the truth is that we could use some sense in regulations.

I recently met with a wonderful group that was here meeting with many members of Parliament, The College of Family Physicians of Canada. This is one area in which I wish we would see action. I generally believe we need regulations to protect health and safety, but some regulations simply do not make sense. The ones that generate unnecessary paperwork for doctors hurt our health care system because they tie doctors and their staff up with unnecessary, unproductive work. This includes, for example, having to write a letter every five years to say that a patient still has an amputated leg. There is also paperwork that has to be issued over and over again to help veterans. It takes up a doctor's time to fill out forms and write letters that are completely unnecessary. Often, especially in the case of the CRA, the patient ends up paying for the service separately, and that is the person who is least able to pay. There would be a great deal of sense in trying to figure out how to reduce the regulatory burden, especially where it is impeding our health care system.

We have been talking about this piece of legislation in terms of modernizing. Only one party, the Conservative Party, has put forward speakers tonight. Why am I standing here? It is because I am a bit worried about this bill. It is not necessarily just routine, regulatory modernization. My concern is that this bill, which affects 29 different acts, will go only to the industry committee for review. Most of it is pretty uncontroversial, which is why there has been very little interest in it tonight.

My concern is about what happens with the Species at Risk Act changes. When I read this over, I am not entirely sure they are not substantive. They do not appear to be entirely about modernizing; they appear to be substantial or at least substantive changes to the Species at Risk Act. We do not have a great record with the Species at Risk Act. For instance, the southern resident killer whale was listed as endangered in 2003, and the full recovery plan did not come out until 2018. Any changes to the Species at Risk Act that are more than purely routine must go to the environment committee, not the industry committee. We can send it to committee and study it there, but there are 29 different acts. What if something in there is a mistake and we just go ahead with it because these are just normal changes? What about the change to the Fisheries Act to give a fisheries officer the discretion to not lay charges? What if that is substantive, and what if that is a mistake? It is going to go only to the industry committee.

Wrapping things up, I urge some caution here. This is a missed opportunity to actually reduce regulations, but it is also not modernizing them. In the reading I have done since working on the bill for this evening and since the bill was tabled in the Senate, I have some concerns. I express those concerns now knowing full well this bill will be sent right away to the industry committee and probably promulgated without changes. I hope members of the committee will ensure that they are at least satisfied that changes to the Fisheries Act and changes to the Species at Risk Act would not, in fact, hurt nature in this country any more than we have seen through recent decisions. This includes the Roberts Bank expansion in the Port of Vancouver, which will surely hurt those very same southern resident killer whales.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill S-6. How I came to this bill is probably like many people. We read the title: “an act respecting regulatory modernization”. It reminds me of going through Netflix when someone wants to watch something new so they look at the title and think that it kind of fits, and maybe they see the trailer or read the bio and a bit of what is going to go on in the video, and they say that it is something they can probably get behind.

We have lots of regulatory issues in Canada and modernizing them is probably a good thing. We know that over these eight long years, the current Liberal government has introduced more legislation that restricts people. It restricts our ability to get the services we need from our government and it restricts our freedoms and our rights in Canada. If any bill talks about “respecting regulatory modernization”, I would be all over it. There is a list of the departments. There are 12 organizations. I am not going to read all of them, but all of these are things that we should modernize, especially on the regulatory side. We have so much red tape. It has been said that we are the most heavily red-taped country in the world, which holds back our freedoms.

All this excess of regulation makes people sick and tired of dealing with government. They throw up their papers and say, “To heck with this, I am not doing this, not applying for that, not going to get into this program, not going to get this grant and not going to apply for this opportunity”, because there is no end to the red tape, the forms and the excess of regulation that Liberals are known for.

It goes back to the philosophy, I believe, of the Liberals, which is that government knows best, that someone knows better than the citizens. We have seen this time after time with respect to different legislation that gets introduced here. There is this feeling that the poor citizens need the government's protection and they need the hands of the all-knowing government to reach into their lives and make them difficult. I just think it is garbage. I think of all the waste we have in government, all the duplication and all the unnecessary things that everyday, common people go through just to interact with their government. The government is supposed to help them, but in a lot of ways it hurts Canadians. It hurts Canadians' productivity. It hurts our potential to grow our country, to expand, and to create opportunities for the next generation.

That is where the current government has failed miserably in some of the regulatory changes it did early on. I do question how history is going to look back at these eight long years. Hopefully they are coming to an end here soon. I think of the lost opportunity and of the regulatory change in Bill C-69. This is one bill that is terrible for our country. We have seen the results of the restrictive nature of shutting down everything. This goes from coast to coast to coast. I think of one of the largest missed opportunities for Canada. When we look back on these eight long years, what was the worst missed economic opportunity for this generation and probably the next? I think of the impact on liquefied natural gas.

When the Liberals came to government, they knew better than the industry and the citizens about what we should be doing to hopefully lower our emissions and grow our economy. There were 15 liquefied natural gas plants proposed for Canada. This is not just a mom-and-pop gas station down the road; this is $10 billion to $20 billion of economic driving force in those communities, and we had 15 of them proposed. Do members know how many got built? Zero of these plants were built. They were going to be massive economic drivers, and it was all derailed because of Bill C-69 and the Liberal government.

This is the regulatory framework that the Liberals put in. Their end goal was to shut down industry, and they shut it down. They shut down not only the opportunity on the coasts but also the opportunity for well-paying jobs in my province. In Saskatchewan, the drilling rates for natural gas dropped. I shudder to think of how many opportunities and powerful paycheques these families would have had if the Liberals had not brought in this regulation. It would have released so much natural gas out of Canada. That would actually have lowered emissions.

The gas from those plants, for the most part, was headed to Asia and the European market. We are positioned perfectly. Canada can supply the two largest markets with liquefied natural gas. There is no other market that has the known reserves that we have in the ground, positioned in the perfect location in terms of both Europe and Asia.

When we fast forward to what has happened since these plants were cancelled because of the regulatory regime, where the goalposts kept moving, we find that Asia has more coal plants. What the Liberal government does not understand is that we need energy to survive in this climate and to prosper. It is the same in other countries, where our liquefied natural gas could have offset all the tonnage of coal that Asia has been using. What a missed opportunity.

We could have lowered our emissions, provided well-paying jobs for Canadians and collected royalties that could be put back into our society. This is the virtuous circle that we should be encouraging in every industry, but this is an example of the heavy-handed regulatory changes and the red tape that the Liberals have introduced and that have canned so many projects. It is a shame. I think of the missed economic opportunity. There is no larger one that I know of in the history of our country other than the government's change in the regulatory process that killed those 15 plants.

That is on the environmental side. We know that natural gas is a superior source of energy over coal. It lowers emissions and provides good paycheques in Canada. Moreover, it could have saved lives in Europe; this is probably the area that I hope the members on the other side realize most. Energy security is the number one issue in Europe right now. Putin had the control of European countries for natural gas. As we know, unfortunately, what has transpired with the invasion of Ukraine has brought about a real challenge in Europe's energy security. How many lives would have been saved if we had these plants? Putin may not even have invaded Ukraine or, if he did, the war would have been that much shorter because of those countries that rely on natural gas.

It is not going away. As much as there are people who would wish oil and gas away in our lifetime or on our planet, it is always going to be within our mix. I think of how much more Ukraine could have counted on its neighbours in Europe if they were not worried about Putin cutting off their natural gas. That relates exactly to Bill C-69 and why the Liberals changed the goalposts and killed this industry that was just getting on its feet. I cannot think of another regulatory change that has had as much of a negative impact on our planet, be it environmentally or for energy security, as the regulatory change on liquefied natural gas has done.

I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time.

Going back to the regulatory side of things, any time one puts a break on productivity, it hurts the citizens that one is supposedly there to serve. That is wrong. It has affected my home, the Speaker's home and all our homes. We are going to bring it home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do, to some extent, agree with some of the member's statements, especially when it comes to the lack of impacts the bill has in engaging indigenous peoples in the various pieces of legislation it would be making amendments to. I wonder if the member would agree that Bill S-6 could be improved by ensuring regulations would require that indigenous peoples are better engaged in any of these pieces of legislation.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here this evening and share my thoughts on Bill S-6. Before that, however, I just want to acknowledge that I heard the intervention from the hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby about the point of privilege that was raised earlier. I want to say that I welcome his comments and thoughts on that matter. It is an important issue. I will turn to Bill S-6 in a second, but I just want to say that the number one thing I hear from Canadians who happen to catch any of the proceedings on TV is that nobody answers a question, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the government cannot answer the simple question of when it found out.

Bill S-6 is supposed to modernize the regulatory environment. It would make 46 minor changes to 29 acts across 12 different organizations. Apparently, this is supposed to be an annual bill. It is a little bizarre that it is coming in through the Senate, but that tells us one thing: There is actually no owner within the government's executive branch that is supposed to be in charge of red tape or regulatory reduction, because it has to farm out this work to a member of the Senate. Why is it that the government has to find an owner in the Senate? The government does not have anyone over there who is responsible for regulatory modernization. It had to find an owner who is in a different chamber.

My first instinct when looking at the bill is that I am supportive of it. It seems reasonable, but we have to ask ourselves whether these are really the life-changing regulations that we should be looking to reduce for Canadians.

There are other questions I have for the government. Is it going to accept amendments at committee if we have other really good ideas? We just took another senator's private member's bill and blew it up. We are going to accept a ton of other amendments to that senator's bill, so hopefully we will do that with this one.

Also, the government is not even measuring how many regulations we have. There are over 4,000 regulations in the consolidated regulations of Canada, and we are going to take out 45, but we do not know how many regulations are elsewhere. There is a saying, “What gets measured gets done.” However, we do not even have a baseline, and the government, by its own admission, is thinking about bringing in over 250 regulations over the next couple of years. This year, it would take out only 45, so it seems a little bizarre to claim some great victory that is going to change the lives of Canadians. The regulations seem relatively minor. I look forward to hearing the amazing testimony at committee from officials who are going to say how this is going to revolutionize Canadian lives and make us more innovative, but I am not sure. We should not hold our breath for that.

It is important to remember what the government was elected on. Its members said that better is always possible. That sounds really nice, but why does someone not say, “Why can we not make government simpler?” Why can we not make it simpler for Canadians to deal with the government? I will give a great example. The government has an idea of the underused housing tax. If someone does not use their house for their own personal reasons, they would fill out a form and prove that it is an allowable use, for which they do not have to pay this special tax. However, the form is six pages long. If they try to figure out whether they qualify for an exemption, it is confusing to even the most sophisticated accountants, and they would have to do the form every single year. If they are a farmer or a builder and they build multiple homes, it is unclear whether they would qualify for the exemption, so they would have to fill out that paperwork every year.

Why does the government not just say, “Listen, if you fill out the form once, that is all you have to do until you dispose of the property”? Then it would make sense. If there is no change in control of the property, why would they have to fill out the form, the same six pages, just to say to the government that everything is the same as it was last year? This is the approach the government takes to bringing in new regulations.

It was not that long ago that one could only fax documents into the CRA. In fact, my experience is that I got locked out of my CRA account just a few weeks ago. I owed documents to the CRA. I had to provide documents but since I was locked out of my account, I could not get into it. Do members know what the suggestion was? It was to fax in the documents. I asked why I could not just email them in, but was told the CRA could not accept emails. “Well, how about you print off the email and go and put it on the fax machine, like is that not a reasonable solution?” These are the kinds of things that would make Canadians' lives easier and make it better to deal with the government.

Let us take another example of immigration and some of the delays in the immigration process along with some of the regulatory issues that Canadians are dealing with. There is a young woman who works as a PSW at a retirement home in Midland. This young woman is waiting for her permanent residency card. She has been waiting almost two years. Guess what? This woman is a qualified nurse but she cannot change jobs while she is waiting for her PR card. How incredibly sad is that, to know that we have a health care crisis in this country due to a lack of labour, to know we have a qualified nurse able to do that job but the government, with its policies and its bureaucracy, is preventing that from happening. It is not her fault. It is the government's fault. We are waiting too long to process applications.

There is another example, and the member for Banff—Airdrie mentioned doctors earlier. There are taxi drivers who are qualified doctors in other countries. I met one of them last week. Waheed is his name. He is from Afghanistan and is an incredible human being. He is a qualified doctor. He has to wait four more years to be able to practise family medicine in Canada. His English is excellent. He seemed like a very competent individual. Surely there is a way we can get this person into the medical profession a lot sooner.

Another great example of some regulations we should change has to do with Transport Canada. It cannot approve medicals quickly enough to make sure that we can get pilots approved to fly. I will give an example. Gary lives in my riding. Gary is recently retired and Gary builds his own planes. That is what he does as a hobby. All he wants to do in his retirement years is fly a couple of planes. His medical has been sitting waiting to be approved at Transport Canada for almost two years. He says, “Adam, all I want to do is fly my planes. How many years do you think I have to wait to get this approved by Transport Canada?”

These are regulations that will actually change people's lives if we can speed them up. Instead, we have this list that seems like a bit of a list of low-hanging fruit from a bunch of other places. It is unclear to me what the actual impact will be of all these regulations. I hope that we will get a chance to get some evidence at committee and the government will be held accountable for how this is actually going to improve the lives of Canadians.

I will give one example as I close that the government might want to take back to its own people. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act provides that governments may allow electronic documents in place of paper documents. It is an opt-in provision for departments. I have a simple solution: departments must have a provision for electronic documents and paper documents. That would be a very simple, easy law to change that would then require each department, where they have a form, to also produce a digital version.

I think there are lots of things we could do. I hope the government is open to suggestions at committee and I look forward to fielding all of its questions right now.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North.

With a Liberal government that, by all accounts, thrives on weaving red tape and thick layers of regulations into almost every government process, there is a certain irony in that it is now putting forward a bill that outlines measures, and I will quote from Bill S-6's preamble, that “repeal or amend provisions that have, over time, become barriers to innovation and economic growth [and] to add certain provisions with a view to support innovation and economic growth”. The great irony here is the bill's stated goal of supporting innovation and economic growth, which would certainly be better achieved by replacing this worn-out Liberal government with a new Conservative government. Such a government would have respect for the economic fundamentals that create wealth and jobs in this country and would properly balance regulations with the need to ensure that we have an innovative free market.

Perhaps this bill is an effort by the Liberals to try to burnish their credentials on this front. Those members over there know that their party lacks any credibility on this issue. Remember, it was just this year that, in its red-tape report card, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave the Liberals the worst-ever federal government grade for their inaction on reducing red tape.

I can guarantee that every member on that side has heard the outcry from constituents and from business leaders in their own ridings. I am sure members have heard from every income bracket and from every economic sector about their government's destructive penchant for heavy intervention in the economy, for burdensome restrictions and regulations and for ever-increasing taxes. These things are hard to ignore.

The Liberal inclination is to pursue every opportunity to suppress and suffocate businesses. That is among the reasons that Canada has a serious red-tape crisis and and a serious productivity crisis.

We see it, for example, in the housing crisis that we examined only yesterday in the House, during our party's opposition motion. We have a housing crisis in the country, one that needs to be urgently addressed. Home ownership and rental affordability continue to pose a crisis for Canadians struggling because of this government's inflationary policies, with monthly mortgage costs more than doubling since the Liberal government took office. With the average cost of rent now at about $3,000 a month, we simply need more housing in the country. This must address the existing need, not to mention the coming demand as our population continues to grow.

The country needs smart, responsive policy that enables a response to the demand to provide the affordable housing stock that a growing population needs. However, to have that, the market needs the tools to be nimble. It needs the government to stop intervening in processes as a matter of course rather than only when strictly necessary.

Unfortunately, interference seems to be deeply rooted in the culture of the Liberals. Their response to a housing crisis is to stick with the failed policies and the entrenched interests that block construction of new housing. They insist on tying unnecessary red tape and layers of bureaucracy into the process of getting new housing built. It is instinctual for them to use restriction and red tape to complicate problems rather than reasonably streamlining processes in order to find solutions.

As another example, we have a shortage of health care workers in this country. After eight years under the Liberals, more than six million Canadians lack access to a family doctor. One solution to this issue is having more doctors. The obvious first source for more doctors would be those already in the country. We have nearly 20,000 foreign-trained doctors who are already here and could help ease those shortages. However, a great many of them cannot work in Canada because of the red tape and regulations that prevent them from getting licences.

There are ways to streamline the onerous layers of bureaucracy to allow these individuals to more efficiently prove their qualifications to work in Canada and to meet our standards. However, the Liberals will not do it. They prefer to keep failed processes and policies in place rather than responding in an innovative fashion. This is another thing that will change under a soon-to-come Conservative government. We are going to remove the gatekeepers and eliminate the red tape that prevents foreign-trained health care workers who are already here in our country from being able to practise their professions. Our party's blue seal plan to efficiently license professionals who prove they are qualified is going to help ease the shortage that, under the Liberals, has Canada projected to be short 44,000 physicians by 2030.

I want to take a minute now to address what I would say is probably the most significant thing we could do in this area with respect to removing some of the red tape, barriers and burdens that government puts up. This would really help to unlock the potential of our economy, not only in my home province of Alberta but also all across this country of Canada. This is to remove some of the burdensome, ever-changing regulations and restrictions on getting major energy projects built in this country.

I think about the pipeline projects that the current government has effectively killed with the ever-changing restrictions and regulations it has put in place. Northern gateway was ended because of a ban on tanker traffic off our west coast. Energy east finally threw the white flag up because the government kept changing the rules as it went along. Billions of dollars were being spent trying to go through the process. When companies are literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars, into the billions in some cases, to try to go through these processes, and the government just pulls the carpet out from under them, eventually they have to quit throwing good money after bad. That is what happened in the case of the energy east project.

I could go on about that, but I also want to touch on LNG, liquid natural gas. This has been widely talked about in recent years. As Conservatives, we have talked about it for a number of years now, pretty much since the government first took office. There were 15 proposals for LNG projects that sat on the Prime Minister's desk, and not one of those has been built. We could be meeting the needs of Europe and other parts of the world for LNG. We could replace Russian gas, for example, and coal-fired power in such places as China. However, those kinds of opportunities are stifled because of red tape and regulations in this country.

We could be creating billions of dollars in economic activity for this country. We could be creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for Albertans and for all Canadians. We could have an immeasurable and very positive impact on our environment by reducing emissions. We could have a major impact on human rights. We could have a major impact on improving global security and global energy security. This could be major. It could unlock so much potential in this country. We should be seeking ways to do that when we talk about housing, pipelines and major projects.

We could be doing so much if we could just get government interference out of the way. Everyone knows that we need regulations and that we need to ensure we have proper rules. However, we need to make sure that this is being done in a reasonable way. We need a government that understands the real costs of red tape. It makes our country less competitive in the world. It makes our citizens less successful. The government is content to continue to increase the size and the cost of government while creating more regulations that make life even more expensive. However, that failed approach does not bring in more skilled immigrants, doctors and tradespeople, nor does it bring bigger paycheques for the workers we need here in Canada. It is obvious that the real work on tackling red tape and bringing common sense to the regulatory structure will only begin under a new Conservative government.