Evidence of meeting #2 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was electricity.
A video is available from Parliament.
President, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
It just keeps slipping down for some reason.
Anyway, no, I'd like to see targets for policy.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
Let me interject with a question if I may. I'm sorry.
I agree with you completely that Canada has everything the world wants and that we should be booming.
I want to ask this, particularly about the perspective of your coalition of manufacturers.
I represent constituencies around Hamilton and in southwestern Ontario. Obviously, that's an important manufacturing base and was once a great area of strength for our economy. Interprovincial certification and standards can be just as costly and frustrating as international ones. Does this bill address that problem at all?
President, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
I think it starts to.
I agree with the chief that we should separate these two parts of the bill, because they're very different and they need different consideration. Sticking them together and.... Everybody opposes omnibus bills when they're in opposition, but then, when they're in government, they include all the omnibus bills because they want the controversial stuff included with the stuff that other people would normally agree with.
I think it makes a start, to be fair, but—boy—I've been around this issue for a long time, many decades. Everybody agrees with it, but then nothing or very little actually happens. I'd like to see more specifics around it. Everyone has good intentions, but when it comes right down to the details, you see provinces hanging on to their little fiefdoms of whatever kind and the federal government not doing too much about that. I would like to see it go an awful lot further. Once again, generics are politically acceptable because, “Oh, they're trying to do something about this,” but anybody who knows the history of interprovincial trade barriers knows we need a lot more precise action than we have seen in the bill.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
This is a baby step forward. It's probably more symbolism than anything else.
President, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
To date, yes. I'd be the happiest person if we could actually get some action here, but, once again, I've been on this issue for decades. I was a former president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as you may know, and I've seen government after government of different political stripes say, “We're going to do something about this,” and so on and so forth. I'm actually more encouraged, to be honest with you, by the provinces that have initiated things and said, “Okay, we're going to drop all of our barriers with province X,” like Tim Houston did, for example.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
Is there an example of a province moving forward on that?
President, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
Yes, I think that Tim Houston, for example, in Nova Scotia, has done some good things on that. We did have, back a bunch of years ago, a number of western provinces—notably, Alberta and Saskatchewan—that got together in an alliance, and they dropped the barriers between them.
Actually, the two biggest provinces in the country, Ontario and Quebec, are some of the worst players in this, so they need to get part.... Recently, we've heard some good noises coming out of both of those provinces, but, again, action is what counts, as we all know. I think that, to date, we've heard good talk, but I'd like to see it actually happen.
Unfortunately, these laws have built up over time, so some businesses have complied with the laws, which they should, but they've done it to a point that, if the laws are changed, they're going to fight that, so it's a very difficult issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Ms. Swift.
Thank you, Mr. Muys.
It is now your turn, Mr. Lauzon. You have five minutes.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to build on that discussion, Ms. Swift. I wasn't planning to ask this, but I want to follow up on the answers you gave.
You said that we are going too fast but not fast enough when it comes to oil. We've heard from interesting witnesses who talked about energy corridors and proposed good ideas such as electrification and small modular nuclear reactors.
My question is a very simple one, Ms. Swift. Do you sincerely believe that a coalition of provinces, territories and municipalities could ensure a smoother process for projects thanks to the passage of Bill C-5?
President, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
It's a good question, but there's not an easy answer. To be honest, I really don't know.
I just think that this is a power grab by the federal government, because it is so ill-defined and non-specific. We heard in the throne speech, for example.... The oil and gas thing is a big deal. If people think that our policies, which have really hobbled that sector for the last decade, are effective, they just have to look at the basic economic data to know that's not the case. It is truly the answer of how we quickly get....
This is the other thing: Nothing will happen tomorrow. All of these projects need a lot of lead time. I find the nuclear prospect very promising, and the fact is that more people are accepting it as a sensible solution because it's a very clean form of energy. However, again, a nuclear reaction facility has a lead time of 15 to 20 years, so that's not going to be the quick fix that we would like to have in Canada to fix our economy.
No, I don't think Bill C-5 does it, to be honest with you. I think it's too loose, and it's effectively a power grab. Analyzing it as a Canadian, as an economist, I have no idea what it's going to end up with. There's so much subjectivity and trust in the current government to implement it—
President, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
—properly to really benefit Canadians and not just hand more money to their Liberal friends.
I don't think it's there. I think we need a lot more detail and we need to work on it. It was whipped together quickly. Anybody who knows legislation knows it was whipped together very quickly, and that's why it's so generic. It doesn't get into the specifics, and it needs to.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, the interpretation has stopped. I think it's hard to hear what the witness is saying.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Has the interpretation stopped?
We're going to ask everybody to pause, please. We want to make sure that the translation is working.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Make sure that your mic is up and you're not on mute. When did we lose the translation?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, I did notice that when the witness was speaking slower, the interpretation was being provided, but I gather that the witness gave information that the interpreters could not properly interpret.
It's hard, because I was listening to the interpretation.
President, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
The short answer is no. I don't believe Bill C-5 accomplishes that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you.
Translation should be working. I'm just going to look over to my....
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
I will turn to Mr. St‑Hilaire now.
You talked a lot about an emergency measure.
The bill is clear: The importance of building a stronger Canadian economy is what ties the legislation together. It's not about a public emergency. It's about the ability to compete in the face of everything that is happening internationally, especially the situation vis-à-vis the United States.
Canada needs to expand its markets. It needs to do a better job. It needs to do more with what it has now. To me, that is not an emergency measure. You consistently referred to the legislation as an emergency measure. Canada is at a crossroads. We have to counter the legal and trade measures we face with the United States. If this isn't a different way for the country to do things, I don't think anything else could define our country in building these projects.
How do you make that distinction, without turning it into an emergency measure? Bill C-5 will improve Canada's production capacity.