Finance Committee on May 14th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We've seen attacks here both ways.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Going back to Mr. Prouse, I just want to make sure I understand the case in question. This small business developed a strain of soybean that could have been planted, prospered and grown here by our farmers for export around the world, but because government bureaucrats refused to indicate whether it was approved for planting, they had to take this Canadian seed and plant it south of the border, to prosper foreign businesses and foreign farmers at Canadian expense.

Did I capture that story properly?

[Dennis Prouse]

Yes, you did.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We need to remove the government from these obstacles so that we can allow our entrepreneurs to prosper. Thank you for bringing this example to our attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

I do expect, though, that it had to go through their regulatory system as well. Is that right? It's just that their regulatory system was faster.

[Dennis Prouse]

Yes. What we're looking for is speed and predictability, because that is what investors are looking for. The predictability part is important too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I agree.

[Dennis Prouse]

You can't have a system that's erratic. Without that predictability, they'll go elsewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You'll get no disagreement from me on that.

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

Given that the presentations were in English, I'll also ask my questions in English.

Mr. Prouse, first, your recommendation of a government-business working group, as you probably saw, was reflected in the fall economic statement.

[Dennis Prouse]

Yes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

The government has also announced a process for modernizing Canada's regulatory system, making it more efficient, more agile, and as you suggested, ensuring the competitiveness angle as well.

My husband is a small business owner. It's how we put food on the table. Therefore, as I'm sure you'll agree, I too believe that business owners are best placed to advise government on how we can modernize our regulations in a way that makes sense.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what we're proposing. Through the consultation process that we have outlined through Treasury Board, what we're looking at are a number of measures in order to co-operate with businesses, including pilot programs to test new products and more digital portals in order to interact with business owners right across the country.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with some of the details of what we're proposing, but I wonder if you could comment on what has been put forward in terms of specific measures that you would either like to see added, or specific measures that you think are helpful.

[Dennis Prouse]

You referenced that external advisory committee on regulatory competitiveness. I saw that they were appointed and that, in fact, there was an agriculture leader placed on that committee. We thought that was a really positive development.

There has been some good progress. It started with Barton, went to the agri-food economic strategy table, went to the fall economic statement and went to the budget. Of course, now we're going to come up on this little thing called an election, and as parties go out on the campaign trail and as they write their platforms, the one message is this: Please don't forget about regulatory modernization and please don't forget about agriculture growth.

To your point, we're on the precipice of some really positive developments, and I came here to support Bill C-97 because there were some positive developments. However, now there will to be a campaign and I'm hoping that momentum can continue so that we don't have to start all over again once we all land back here in November.

That would be my message.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

If there is time, I would like to address a question to Mr. Hatch.

Being a member of Parliament from Quebec, I do appreciate the work that you do for credit unions outside Quebec. You mentioned that you lend to small businesses because you are a small business, and I think that is a very important element of credit unions' work right across the country.

You mentioned your concern about continuing the paper statements to your members. Do you have any concrete proposals or suggestions in order to ensure that seniors who are your members, who might not have access as easily to email or other forms of electronic statements, could receive those statements?

[Michael Hatch]

It depends on, one, how the regulation is written, and two, how credit unions go about their own affairs, but absolutely it's in their interest to make this information available to all their members, whether or not they have access to electronic means of communication.

What I would argue for is an opt-in option so that if you as a credit union member want to have that paper statement delivered to you, by all means, make the request. Right now, what we have is an opt-out, so as we all know, human nature being what it is, nobody opts out of these things. Nobody is organized enough to go online to say they don't want this thing mailed to them. Maybe a very small percentage do but not enough to make a meaningful difference.

We can make it an opt-in, which would save 95% or more of those bricks of paper from being shipped out across the country but still give people the opportunity. If they want to get that paper statement, obviously they should be able to have access to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just to come back to you for a minute, Ms. Coombs, in your remarks you made the comment, “help us remove this unique legislative burden and deliver against the government's regulatory reform agenda.”

We've looked at that. I know we've talked many times on this. We don't see a way this can be done in this particular bill because it's not there. I don't think you're going to find anybody on this committee who wants Canada to be more restrictive in some ways and make industry less competitive. What time frame are you under and what other options are available to us? Do you know?

[Shannon Coombs]

I'm sorry that's not an option before the committee. We were hoping that because it came forward after first reading there would be an opportunity to make that amendment. We are talking about saving the industry a lot of money in the short term because there are initial investments.

In terms of moving forward, I saw this as being, as I call it, a surgical amendment. We're just taking one particular clause out of the Hazardous Products Act so that the burden is not on raw suppliers and on the downstream manufacturing in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The problem as it relates to this bill is that it's more at arm's length from the bill. We're willing to have a look at it. What's the time frame that we're under here with this?

[Shannon Coombs]

When are you doing clause-by-clause, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm saying that I don't think it's possible under clause-by-clause.

[Shannon Coombs]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

What's the time frame for consumer products?

[Shannon Coombs]

Right now, we have to be moving forward and implementing this, so the companies are in a situation where—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. That's good information for us to have.

Thank you to all the witnesses, and thank you, Ms. Macklin, from Toronto.

We will suspend for about five minutes and bring up the next panel.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order again dealing with Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. We have a number of witnesses. We'll start off with Canada Without Poverty, with Ms. Biss, Policy Director and Human Rights Lawyer.

Welcome, Ms. Biss. Go ahead.