Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This discussion is relevant on a number of points.
In many jurisdictions across Canada.... With the way it's presented, I get it; you guys are trying to get your clip, but the preamble is just that. It's not necessarily relevant to this committee. It is relevant to businesses that are operating and to the economic sustainability of Canada.
We want to be competitive; hence there having been a lot of red tape reduction measures taking place over a number of years. It's part of the annual review to do so. Being red tape week, for us, it's a consequence of every day maintaining Canada's competitiveness in the international market so that we are one of the top destinations for FDI. Canada still attracts foreign direct investment like no other across the world. That's very telling.
It's also very telling that we've taken measures to reduce red tape, yet the Conservatives voted against those very measures, like the accelerator fund. Here we have an opportunity to accelerate, by its very name, the building of new developments. The Conservatives don't see that as worthy, yet that is a measure by which we reduce red tape.
We have had many discussions with provinces to try to facilitate their reduction measures as well. We have aboriginal communities. We have municipal governments that also have consequences of red tape. The collaboration among these different levels of government is crucial to going forward.
Your motion, in essence, is just the last paragraph. I have to read it for those watching on TV so they can appreciate how frankly ridiculous it is. It reads, “In order to lower costs, and improve services for Canadians, the committee call on the government to immediately reduce the regulatory burden and red tape across all sectors in the economy”.
The Canadian government doesn't have jurisdiction over the Alberta government or the Ontario government, which, in collaboration with the federal government, are taking measures to reduce red tape. They want that plan developed and tabled within 30 days of this motion. Well, a plan is already in place. What is happening here, for those who are watching, is the Conservatives are trying to play with the regulatory burden that all of us feel and get frustrated by. We want to take measures to reduce it to improve our competitiveness. That is always the case—not just this week—and it's being done already. They're just duplicating that which is already under way.
Furthermore, you have independent regulatory bodies out there that are at arm's length of government for a reason, like the Ontario Securities Commission. One of the things we wanted to do was bring forward a national co-operative securities commission across Canada. What would that do? It would reduce red tape, lower costs and be competitive for Canadians and foreign investors coming to Canada.
Who voted against that? Conservative provincial governments did. They were opposed to it because they were afraid of losing jurisdictional power, yet what was at stake? It was the competitiveness of Canada and businesses doing work in Canada, including in Alberta and the oil industry.
They had an opportunity to be much more competitive by having a collaborative securities regulator across the country reducing red tape, reducing regulations and reducing government, yet it was the Conservatives who wanted that government to have dual status. Why? It was to create greater burden.
They're speaking from both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they don't want red tape. On the other hand, they want their little domain protected and they want us to continue to regulate those respective industries. That is a dichotomy.
We will continue, on this side of the House, to look at ways to reduce red tape in a collaborative and efficient manner, and here's why: We already have a number of measures under way to modernize our regulatory process. We have made changes over time and there have been amendments to try to find ways to simplify the process. It is a huge undertaking because there is so much activity across this country with regard to regulatory issues and, for that matter, economic activity. It's a very vibrant country and jurisdiction in the world that competes with other nationalities and other nations, and Canada is winning in many of those cases.
However, I agree we need to be more efficient and reduce some of the burden. We need to find ways to be more competitive. That is always a priority.
They mentioned that there was nothing in the economic statement, but my goodness, there have been red tape discussions in budgets 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Every time we talk about the competitiveness with which Canada can attract investment, we talk about red tape reduction and finding ways to be more efficient. We need to be, and it's not just Canada. It's the provinces and the municipalities as well.
We will continue to collaborate, but let's be practical. What's being proposed here is just a show. What needs to be done is something more practical for Canadians and businesses. We also need to protect the very measures for which red tape exists. There are some regulatory matters that pertain to the environment and to people's social well-being and they enable us to protect the lives of Canadians as well.
We have to balance those measures, but you should have accepted the accelerator fund. You should accept measures that are taken to try to speed up some of the process and reduce costs. We have to try to find a way to maintain a better process for supply chain costs so that we can get into the marketplace and be competitive.
Listen, during the 2008 recession, there was a national crisis and a financial crisis across the globe. At that time, a lot of manufacturing was hit and was hit very hard, and a lot of jobs were lost. If it weren't for some of the regulatory engagement that existed with our Canadian banking institutions, we would have been in real trouble. Because of those measures, Canada responded and reacted much more quickly than any other nation. In fact, some of the very holdings and assets that Canadians held were protected as a result of some of those regulatory issues.
We also took steps to support the auto sector. We took steps to further enhance our industry. The federal government at the time stepped up, and so did the Province of Ontario, which was under a Liberal government at the time. We took those steps, contrary to the Conservatives in the province, who said, no, they didn't want to do those kinds of things because we were increasing supports for this industry and were bailing out companies where they didn't feel that should be the case. In the end, we had over a million net new jobs throughout that time. All those jobs that were lost, plus a million more, were brought in because of some of the measures we did to expedite the industry, to stimulate economic growth and to enhance activity, and we did it by being more efficient with less burdensome aspects around the regulatory system.
We need to continue to be that way. We need to continue to be nimble and vibrant. What we don't need are measures and steps that would only create havoc in the system. When I look at the preamble, we get all that stuff and have those discussions, but what you're suggesting by this motion is to get rid of regulatory aspects completely. The idea is, well, which ones? How do you do it and under what conditions? What do you do to protect those individuals?
Alberta wants to be protected as well. When we were trying to reduce the regulatory burden, they were the ones that fought it, and now they're saying, “My gosh, we need to reduce red tape.” Well, of course we need to reduce red tape, but we need to collaborate and we need to work in conjunction with one another to make it effective.
I just find the motion, which is really only the last paragraph, undoable. The plan that exists is the plan we have, so it can be provided in no time, but with regard to adopting certain reductions in regulations, that's an ongoing matter. That will continue to be the case, and we'll continue to make Canada much more competitive as we go forward. Also, it is more appropriate for this to be at the industry and small business committee, where they're dealing with these issues constantly. I would move that we cancel this motion.
Let's continue to fight for a reduction in red tape and continue to be competitive, and let's put the proper committee in place to review this as we go forward.
Thank you.