Evidence of meeting #99 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was across.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are you moving to adjourn, Mr. Sousa? You've said that you want to cancel this motion. Is that a move to adjourn or is that just rhetoric?
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
No, I'm saying so far as I'm concerned, it's ridiculous. It's a figure of speech.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
If there is one thing I completely approve of, it is indeed cutting red tape. I was elected four years ago and we've been talking about it for four years.
The Red Tape Reduction Act makes no sense. Removing a piece of paper from one department's forms doesn't mean any kind of change for the other departments. I agree there's a lot of red tape in some sectors, and it needs to be cut down. I recognize we didn't finish our study of the act when Parliament was prorogued in 2020, which put the brakes on our conversations and recommendations on the matter. That's a real shame.
I am having some trouble correctly understanding the French version of the act. The way the sentences are drafted makes no sense. Some of them are incomplete. For example, certain expressions denote a cause, but there is no consequence afterwards. Two or three sentences are drafted this way, meaning without linking words, as we call them in French grammar, to correctly understand the links between sentences.
This motion refers to jurisdictions that belong to Canadian provinces and Quebec, as well as municipalities. However, as an MP and a citizen of democracy, I'm not comfortable inviting the federal government to meddle with provincial, Quebecois and municipal democracy. It's as though citizens who voted for the people in place have no voice or importance. This interference is a problem for me. It comes down to saying that federal democracy is more important than provincial democracy or municipal democracy. I am seriously uncomfortable with it.
I fully agree that our role as MPs involves making sure that all the taxes we and taxpayers pay are used sensibly and rationally, not wastefully. I also think it is up to MPs, regardless of their political stripe, to make sure the money is well spent and constantly improve services. I therefore approve part of the motion.
However, another part of this motion makes me seriously uncomfortable, because it means interfering with other levels of democracy, which I cannot approve. So, I will probably follow up later with an amendment or suggestion for an amendment. I can't do it right now, specifically for translation reasons, but also because discussions have to happen between all colleagues so that everyone can come to an understanding.
I would have liked to get the motion ahead of time, if only by 24 hours. We could have discussed it right away. We could also have avoided some of the debate we're having now. However, since we were surprised by the motion, we weren't able to discuss it amongst ourselves, amongst people who are, all in all, civilized. We could have moved the debate forward in a way to completely represent the views of each party, the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.
Don't forget that a minority government is the most democratic government that can exist, because we have no choice but to talk and negotiate. By doing so, we represent not only those who elected us as MPs for a certain party, but also all those who did not vote for us and nonetheless expect us to represent them fairly and equitably. This can only happen under a minority government.
Instead, we unfortunately find ourselves with a motion which came as a surprise and that we weren't able to discuss thoroughly. We are talking about it now, but it involves longer conversations and possible amendments, which aren't necessarily ready the second we get the famous motion.
So, in a few moments, you can expect that I will speak again and suggest changes regarding all of the points I just raised.
Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I really do appreciate hearing all the comments from my colleagues around the table. I very much welcome this discussion and debate. I think it's an important one.
I've been reading a book by Cass Sunstein, who was inside the first Obama administration. The name of the book is Simpler. I would recommend that all members pick it up because of what it's about. How do we make government and the economy simpler? How do we streamline things? How do we make them more effective? How do we make them more efficient? It's really interesting, because I think that is absolutely the goal of Liberal members of this government, as it was a priority in the Obama administration, a democratic government in the United States as well.
It's important to recognize that this is a priority, really, for all governments, so I welcome this discussion. I welcome this debate. I think it's an important debate to have. However, this motion, as it is currently crafted, is lazy and dim, and the only purpose it serves is as a slogan to gather clips. That's all it is. Let's just put all our cards on the table. Let's call a spade a spade and let's say what this motion is about. This is an important issue, but this motion is just poor. It doesn't meet the standard of what should be a very important conversation.
Our government is committed to cutting red tape. Let me give you one example of that. The most important issue right now facing our country is the housing shortage, the shortage of affordable housing, and the very purpose of our housing accelerator fund is to partner with municipalities directly to cut red tape and to make different types of housing legal again. A perfect example of that is working with our municipalities to provide funding to encourage municipalities that want to get more housing built to eliminate some of the red tape at the local level—specifically, rules that made it illegal to build four units “as of right” across cities. Twenty-eight municipalities have signed up to our housing accelerator fund plan. Twenty-eight communities have adopted four units “as of right” across their cities. They're cutting red tape, with our support, to help build more housing. Those twenty-eight communities have committed to building 400,000 new housing units in the next few years.
This is what a federal government that is collaborative and that understands partnerships looks like. It's working directly with municipalities to cut red tape to get more affordable housing built faster in our communities. It's odd that the Conservatives, who are so interested in cutting red tape and so interested in building more houses, voted against the housing accelerator fund and voted against Bill C-56. When we introduced a bill to cut GST from the construction of rental housing, they voted against it. You have a government that's committed to doing the right thing, to making sure we get houses built and to making sure we work with our provincial and municipal counterparts to get more houses built, in part by cutting red tape. That's what we're doing. Conservatives are against.
Let me give you another recent example: renewable energy and the Atlantic accords. Bill C-49 would extend the Atlantic accords to build offshore wind farms in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. There's already a project being built. It's a billion-dollar project. There are billions of dollars waiting to be invested in offshore wind farms and clean energy in the Atlantic provinces right now.
We introduced Bill C‑49 to streamline that process to make it easier for investment in clean technology and wind farms across the Atlantic provinces. We're talking about billions of dollars to create tens of thousands of jobs in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the foundations of that bill is to cut red tape and streamline the process.
By the way, the provinces all supported it. The premiers of those provinces signed on. Who voted against those accords? Who voted against streamlining the process to build offshore wind farms in the Atlantic? It was the Conservatives. They are the ones who are bringing forward a dim, lazy motion to cut red tape at this committee.
It's appalling. Enough with the politics. Let's talk a bit more about this preamble and some of the things contained in the colourful preamble that was introduced here today.
Let's talk about the economy. In the last year, Canada was the number one destination for foreign direct investment in the entire world, per capita. What does that mean? It means that more international companies invested more money in our country than in any other country in the world, per capita.
Businesses see Canada as the place to put their money because they know that it's a good investment. They know that this is where you have the best workforce in the world. This is where you have the best investment climate in the world.
Let's talk facts. That's Canada. It's the number one destination for foreign direct investment. That is businesses voting with their feet and with their money to come here. There's Stellantis in Windsor, which we know the Conservatives don't support. There's Volkswagen in St. Thomas. We know the Conservatives don't support it, even though their own member represents that entire community. There's Northvolt in Montreal. They don't support that. They don't support investments in clean technology.
There are 1.1 million more workers working in this country now than before the pandemic. That is a federal government working hand in hand with business to grow and strengthen our economy. That's a partnership. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any major developed country. We have a AAA rating from the credit agency. We were able to attract this investment. We were able to create jobs. We're on a sound fiscal footing as well.
Wages have been higher than inflation in the last year. In my community, we've seen unions negotiate historic deals with the Big Three, which are putting more money in the pockets of Canadians and workers. We're seeing workers earning more money today than in the past.
Let's talk about unions and red tape for a second. The Conservatives wanted to drown unions in red tape. They forget that. They introduced Bill C-377. My colleague across the way from the NDP remembers that. When they were in government, they wanted to drown unions in red tape with all sorts of different accounting paperwork that unions would have been forced to submit. It would have crippled them. It would have undermined unions' work by drowning them in red tape. These are the very same unions that have fought for higher wages and better work conditions for Canadians over the last number of months.
You talk about the economy. We are a trading nation. We export. Most of our GDP is created because we have companies that export goods to the United States and around the world. In my hometown, 80% to 90% of what we manufacture is for export. In Windsor—Essex, 90% of what we grow is for export.
This government has signed more trade deals than pretty much anyone. We have trade deals with just about every country on this planet. We wanted to sign a free trade agreement with Ukraine, which Ukraine herself asked for, that would not only support Ukraine in her time of need but support farmers in Canada and support Canadian businesses looking to do business in Ukraine to help in the future reconstruction of Ukraine. The Conservatives voted against that free trade agreement for the very same game of politics they're playing here today: slogans, politics, videos—yay.
Try governing. Try working with us to govern this country. That's what we're asking for: real policies, real ideas, real programs, real partnerships—none of these lazy, dim slogans.
The other thing I would say, on the issue of foreign doctors and nurses, is that the training of doctors and nurses takes place at the provincial level. The training of foreign international health care workers takes place at the provincial level. We know that. We understand that. We also understand that we have a role to play in that as well. That's why, literally four weeks ago, we announced, for example, that we are spending an additional $86 million to help 15 provincial organizations and associations speed up the credentialing of internationally trained health care workers. The credentialing of 6,600 health care workers will be sped up.
I want to quote what the minister texted just a few weeks ago. This is the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities—she herself a nurse—on the issue of foreign credential recognition. Here is what she tweeted out literally two days ago: “@PierrePoilievre, take it from me, a nurse: actions speak louder than words. You voted against the work we’re doing that’s speeding up foreign credential recognition. Your slogans won’t fool nurses, we know the only thing happening to healthcare under Conservatives is cuts.” Ouch.
It's the same thing, guys. We know your shtick. It's just slogans—empty slogans. There is nothing behind them, and there's nothing behind this motion. It's just slogans.
I'm begging you. Do the work that Canadians sent us to Parliament Hill to do. Work with us. Get serious. Cut the videos. Cut the slogans. Cut the politics. Do the damn work. Get things done.
With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to talk about what I think is an important issue. There are many different aspects to this issue, but let's be serious about it. Let's toss this motion in the garbage bin where it belongs. Let's talk about this issue seriously and approach it from the many different avenues it deserves.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
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.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Yes. It's an important topic. I think we should hear from everybody, or do you just want to speak?
Again, this is the thing. We're talking about amendments that will help to reduce administrative burden for businesses and facilitate digital interactions with government. We've seen digital adoption take place to find efficiencies. That work needs to be done, and we all need to collaborate to get things done. We should “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 governments.” That's all governments. I know the members opposite. We're talking about working with regulating bodies across provinces.
When I look at the motion being put forward, I go back to what my colleague Mr. Powlowski said: It's all sectors in the economy. We need to pinpoint this down to what we are trying to achieve. If we're talking about deregulation, which industries? Let's break it down. It's a bit tough to say “within 30 days” for “all sectors in the economy”. How are we going to impose some of these things on all of the regulatory bodies that exist out there—for doctors the colleges of physicians, and for engineers the colleges of engineers? Are we once again imposing lower standards, as I talked about in the real estate industry?
When we push deregulation on every industry across the country, we have to do it carefully so as not to lower the standards being set by every industry across Canada. I understand and agree that we need to continue the work and make sure we make the changes necessary to get things moving, but that requires all of us to work together.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I think what we're looking at here is something that needs to be more clear. The motion being put forward needs to have a tremendous amount of clarity added and then it can be brought forward. I don't think this is something we can move forward on as it is.
With that, Mr. Chair, thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks.
Mr. Bachrach, go ahead, please, and then we'll go to Mr. Genuis.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the warm welcome at the start of the meeting. It's a distinct pleasure to join the government operations committee. I know that my colleague Gord Johns did some great work here. I look forward to continuing that legacy.
When it comes to the motion before us, I think what we've heard in the debate so far is that everyone around this table supports the reduction of inefficient and unnecessary regulation. That process needs to be done thoughtfully, not only so we're serving the interests of the small businesses in our community, but also so we're avoiding the pitfalls of deregulation that is ill-informed and improperly constructed.
I'm not sure, given this government's track record, that requiring a plan within 30 days is going to serve anybody. I think a plan covering every sector of our economy that is hastily put together in 30 days to satisfy a motion from the government operations committee isn't going to be a plan at all. I don't think that escapes anyone around this table.
The matter I want to speak to specifically relates to the fact that my Conservative colleagues, in their introductory remarks speaking to this motion, cited several times the work of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization that represents small businesses in all of our communities. I know that folks around this table have probably met with that organization on several occasions over the past number of months, yet in the preamble to this motion there's no mention of the CFIB's number one priority, which for the past year has been the extension of the loan repayment deadline for the CEBA loans, including the partial loan forgiveness portion.
This affects thousands if not hundreds of thousands of businesses across Canada. During the tough times of the pandemic when they were struggling to keep their doors open and when many of them were forced to close their doors due to public health measures, they took out these loans to stay alive. They did so reluctantly. I don't think there's a small business in any of our communities that takes on extra debt with any enthusiasm. They did this in part because the government extended a generous loan forgiveness offer. If they borrowed $40,000, they could qualify for 25% of that, or $10,000, to be forgiven if they paid it back by a certain date. If they borrowed $60,000, they could qualify for $20,000 to be forgiven. For anyone who's been in business, those are favourable terms for borrowing money. Many businesses, including those in my riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, like Grizzly Jim's General Store in Topley and the Tillicum Twin Theatres in Terrace, took out those loans in order to survive some of the toughest economic times our country had seen.
What we've been calling for over the past number of months is very much in line with what the CFIB is calling for. The government should extend the repayment deadline for the CEBA loans by an additional year, until the end of 2024, including the partial loan forgiveness offer. This recognizes that no sooner had businesses started to recover—and many of them haven't fully recovered from the challenges of the pandemic—that they were hit with a number of other extremely challenging trends, including rising inflation, the high cost of living and challenges with a tight labour market. This created a perfect storm for many small businesses in our communities.
What they have been asking for is something that's eminently reasonable—a bit more time to pay back the loans. I don't think anyone is suggesting that businesses should be held to the terms of the original agreement, but they're looking for some more time so they can access loan forgiveness, which was one of the reasons they were willing to take on this debt in the first place. My NDP colleagues and I, along with some of our Bloc colleagues, have been raising this repeatedly in the House of Commons over the past year.
It's disappointing, and I don't think lost on many small businesses, that our Conservative colleagues and our Liberal colleagues have been almost entirely silent on this issue. Despite the calls of the CFIB for this loan forgiveness to be extended, there has been no support from the two largest parties in the House of Commons. I think is a real shame, because I believe, working together with our Conservative colleagues in opposition, that if we had presented a unified front on this issue facing businesses in our ridings, we could have pushed the government to provide relief for hundreds of thousands of small businesses across this country that are needing help during extraordinarily challenging times.
Now, of course, the January 18 deadline has passed. I have spoken to many small businesses that have cobbled together the financing in order to pay off their loans and access loan forgiveness, but there are many more that weren't able to and lost the loan forgiveness that was a part of the original offer from this government. Those businesses are now going to continue to struggle with the burden of this debt, and $60,000 in additional debt is a lot for a small business.
At the same time, I don't think it's too late. I think the government can still do right by these small businesses, these entrepreneurs and these members of our community who want to keep their doors open.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I am pleased to move an amendment to the Conservative motion before us, which would read as follows. After the words “all sectors in the economy”, I'd like to add a comma and insert the words “extend partial loan forgiveness for the CEBA loans until the end of 2024”.
With that, I'll end my remarks, and I look forward to debating our amendment.
January 29th, 2024 / 12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, can I just quickly ask if that's in scope? It's obviously an important issue and we've debated it here previously.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you. We are back. I appreciate the time.
From chatting with our clerk and our analysts, I believe it is outside the scope because it does not refer back to anything generally in the motion.
However, we did have other motions regarding this, and I would recommend that you put in a separate motion altogether for this, Mr. Bachrach.
We are now going over to Mr. Genuis.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be brief because it's clear that we are in the middle of a Liberal filibuster, and I don't want to help them in any way as they seek to draw this out and prevent us from coming to a vote on this important motion on red tape by my colleague Mr. Davidson.
I will point out a few obvious things. We have in front of us a motion by Mr. Davidson on combatting red tape. This is a simple, clear motion that highlights the fact that we have too much red tape in a broad number of sectors in Canada and that we need to address that red tape. The motion calls on the government to present a plan within 30 days to address this growing problem of regulatory burden and red tape.
The Liberal members across the way have said a few things. They've said that, yes, red tape is a problem; it's always a problem. They ask where it's coming from and say they don't know; there's just all this red tape out there.
Well, when we talk about red tape—of course it exists in other institutions as well—we're talking specifically about red tape within the federal government, which is within the purview of the executive to make regulations about. After eight years of NDP-Liberal rule in this country, they can hardly say that this red tape comes from somewhere else. All of these things keep happening to this government that they're not responsible for. Inflation is up. Housing costs are up. Red tape is up. Where is it coming from?
Maybe the people who have been in charge of this country for the last eight years should take responsibility for the problems they're causing, should take responsibility for their failure to address red tape. This is why we brought forward a motion calling on the government to present a plan to reduce red tape.
What else have they said? They've said that they're having meetings on it, that it's just like auto theft, that they're going to have a summit and that they're going to bring in people and talk more about it. Again, that's not an action plan. We want to see the government take action to reduce red tape.
The other thing that a few of the members across the way have said is that they already have a plan, they're already doing it and everything's fine. Well, then they should support the motion because our motion calls on them to table a plan. If they already have a plan, then they should show us the plan. It shouldn't take 30 days. It should take five minutes.
If the NDP-Liberal government actually had a plan to reduce red tape, they would have no problem supporting this motion because, substantially, this motion calls on them to table that plan in the House of Commons. I would say 30 days is generous if they already have a plan and are trying to table it. However, the reality is that they don't have a plan. The reality is that the red tape situation has become much worse under this government.
It's true, as Mr. Powlowski says, that there was red tape in the world prior to Justin Trudeau becoming Prime Minister, but I think he has really perfected red tape. I think he has seen a situation in which there's always an appetite for a reduction of red tape, and he has driven the bus radically in the wrong direction.
When the Conservatives took government, we had a concerted red tape reduction initiative that was very effective. It involved the measurement and reduction of red tape. It was happening under the Conservatives. The red tape regulatory burden is getting worse under this government. They don't have a plan. If they did have a plan, they would stop their filibustering and have no problem supporting this motion and seeing it pass.
If they are serious, then let's vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Genuis, I'm going to interrupt you on that point. I apologize.
We need to suspend. We're losing Mrs. Vignola because of IT issues. We're going to suspend for a few minutes so she can restart her computer. Then we'll get back to you, sir.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm done, though, so you can go to whomever afterwards.
We're ready for a vote. Let's vote.