Debates of June 19th, 2014

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #223

Respect for Communities Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the third time and passed.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-6.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #224

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Business of the House

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the last Thursday statement before we break tomorrow for the summer, I would first like to pay tribute to the NDP caucus. For the past four weeks, we have been having evening sittings. The Conservatives and the Liberals missed about 200 opportunities to speak. However, the NDP members were always there for their shifts. What is more, they did the job of the Conservatives and the Liberals. The NDP has a strong and extraordinary caucus. I want to recognize the hardest working caucus that Parliament has ever seen.

I am not finished because I also want to say that I really appreciate the work of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. He is very knowledgeable and has a lot of energy. I hope he has a good summer. I would also like to thank the House Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Beauséjour, who has a lot of experience as an MP and as the House leader of the Liberal Party. I wish both of them a good summer.

As my colleague from Hamilton Mountain did two years ago, I would also like to recognize all those who keep the House running. Canadians watching at home might not realize it, but there is a huge network of talented and professional staff who work tirelessly to make this place run like clockwork.

First, there is you, Mr. Speaker, and your staff, along with the procedural experts in the clerks' offices, the table, the journals branch, the committee directorate staff, the Library of Parliament staff and, of course, all of our incredible pages, who do a wonderful job.

There is the Sergeant-at-Arms and everyone from security, as well as traffic operations, the drivers of our green buses, dispatch operators, mail room staff and messengers.

There is the cafeteria staff and the food services and catering team.

There is the maintenance staff, the tradespeople in the Parliamentary precinct, materiel management and room allocation.

There is everyone in information services, including telecom, ISSI, printing services and the broadcasting team.

There are the people who deal with HR, finance, travel and pay and benefits.

There are the folks at Hansard who transcribe and edit all of our words and those who translate and interpret them from one official language to the other. Given that the NDP is a bilingual caucus, we really appreciate all the work that is done by the interpreters and translators.

The official opposition wishes to one and all a happy summer with lots of door-knocking.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, after this proceeding, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act. I know that my hon. friend, the President of the Treasury Board—a man with firm views on paper documents—is very keen to get this debate started.

Tonight, after private members' hour, the House will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. Once that is done, I look forward to picking up where we left off this morning with second reading of two bills to create new parks: Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, in the greater Toronto area, and Bill S-5, which will establish a new national park reserve in the Northwest Territories.

If we have time left before midnight, we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act (Quanto's Law); Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act; Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and Bill C-21 if we do not finish that by 5:30 today.

Tomorrow will be the sixth and final day of second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, a bill that, despite lengthy debate, all parties agree should be studied by our hard-working justice committee.

However, the highlight of this week will of course come later this afternoon. The Usher of the Black Rod will knock on the door and summon us to attend the Governor General in the Senate chamber where, with the three constituent elements of Parliament assembled, we will participate in the ancient ceremony of royal assent.

Based on messages read from the other place, and messages I anticipate later this afternoon, 14 new laws will be made upon His Excellency's imperceptible, or barely perceptible, nod. This will mark a total of 25 bills passing through the entire legislative process since October's Speech from the Throne. Of these, 20% are private members' bills, further underscoring the unprecedented empowerment of members of Parliament under this Prime Minister's government.

Speaking of the time passing since October, we are also marking the end of the academic year. This means the end of the time with this year's fine class of pages. Here I know that some in the chattering classes have concerns about the length of my weekly business statements, but I hope they will forgive mine today.

As we all know, the pages work extremely hard and do some incredible work, both in the chamber and in the lobbies. They perform many important duties, which in some cases go unnoticed, or at least so they think so. They show up before the House opens each morning and stay until after it closes at night. We all know that over the past few weeks, it has meant much longer days than usual, but even then, the pages have remained professional, respectful, and have started each day with a smile, and ended it with one too, although that occasionally required a bit of encouragement on my part.

I would first off like to thank them for their service. Without them and their support, members of Parliament would not be nearly as effective and efficient in performing the duties that Canadians sent us to Ottawa to undertake.

I do have some insight from being married to a former page, from the class of '87 actually, and she often refers to her year as a page as the best year of her life. Here I can say that the experiences the pages have had at the House of Commons is something they will remember for the rest of their lives.

In addition, I know that in my wife's case, some of the friends she made in the page program are still good friends to this day, including, in fact, the chief of staff to the current leader of the Liberal Party. I hope that will be the same for all of you, that is being friends for life—not that other thing.

I am sure that the pages are looking forward to the summer break so they can all take their minds off of school and visit with friends and family to share their many stories and experiences, some of which are even funny, with us here in the House. I will not be surprised one day if we find some of them occupying seats in this chamber, something that happened for the first time in this Parliament with the hon. members for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Mississauga—Brampton South, both having been elected to sit here in this Parliament.

Some of the pages may also find employment on Parliament Hill working for members, and I know that I have, without fail, been impressed by the high calibre of ambitious young people who have worked in my office during stints as page.

Over the past three years, the House has worked in a productive, orderly, and hard-working manner, and this has not been possible without the help of the pages. I believe it is safe to say that I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I thank them for their dedication and service, and finally, give them our best wishes for success in all their future endeavours.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not join my counterpart in giving thanks to your fellow chair occupants, the clerks at the table, and the countless staff behind the scenes who support all that we do here, especially all that we did during the four weeks of extended sitting hours. On behalf of the government and the Conservative caucus, I thank them.

With respect to the schedule of business before the House during the week of September 15, I will ensure that we will, through the usual channels, advise my counterparts of what that will be.

In closing, I want to wish all hon. members and everybody in this place all the best for a happy and restful summer, and I regret that I have no motion to present at this time.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to thank both the opposition House leader and the government House leader, and of course our hard-working pages to whom I extend my own words of thanks. I have got to know quite a few of them over the course of the year and they are, as both House leaders indicated, a very professional and dedicated group of young individuals who, I am sure, have bright futures ahead of them.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel on a point of order.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the pages on behalf of the Liberal Party. I thank the staff, the personnel, and my colleagues as well. I know it has been tough sitting until midnight, and sometimes later. I thank everybody involved in making this place run, including you, Mr. Speaker, and all your personnel, and obviously our personnel.

On behalf of the Liberal Party, I would like to wish everybody, not a merry Christmas, but a good summer.

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

moved that Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of this ground-breaking legislation to reduce red tape, one of the first of its kind in the world.

The legislation before us would put strict controls on the growth of regulatory red tape by enshrining the one-for-one rule in law, which means that in order to change it, the government of the day would have to go to Parliament.

The one-for-one rule is the centrepiece of our package of regulatory reforms aimed at cutting red tape that can stifle businesses' productivity and their overall success. Under the rule, regulators must offset any administrative burden that increases from regulatory changes with equal reductions in existing regulation. That is not all. When a brand new regulation is introduced that adds to the administrative burden, an existing regulation must also be repealed. We have been implementing the one-for-one rule since April 1, 2012 through the cabinet directive on regulatory management. However, we are definitely not stopping there.

With the bill before us today, Canada would be the first country in the world to give the one-for-one rule the added muscle of legislation. This would make it one of the most aggressive red tape reduction measures in the world. The health, safety, and security of Canadians would still be protected. In fact, the preamble of this bill is very clear that the one-for-one rule must not compromise health, public safety, or the Canadian economy.

After more than two years of experience, we know that the rule is working. Before we look at the success of this measure and of our entire package of regulatory reforms, I want to talk first about why reducing red tape is so important.

Red tape impacts the livelihoods of all Canadians. It directly affects our ability as a country to create jobs, to grow, to innovate, and to compete. There is a direct connection between red tape and our long-term prosperity. Unnecessary red tape puts a wrench in the smooth flow of trade and bogs down the dynamic exchange of goods and services that is the lifeblood of a healthy economy. It also costs. A 2008 study by Statistics Canada reported that the cost to comply with the information obligations of 12 of the most common federal, provincial, and municipal regulations in five sectors of the economy worked out to a stunning $1.1 billion per year. In that same year, the Canada Revenue Agency calculated that the average annual time spent per establishment to comply with legislative tax requirements was 15 hours, at an annual average cost of $1,724.

As the Prime Minister has stated, red tape is a hidden tax and a silent killer of jobs. It is a cost business owners, who are already competing tooth and nail, simply cannot afford. We know this because our Prime Minister had the foresight to launch the Red Tape Reduction Commission in January 2011. The Prime Minister asked the commission to identify irritants to business that have clear detrimental effects on growth, competitiveness, and innovation. The commission was also asked to recommend ways to address those irritants and to reduce the compliance burden on a lasting basis, without compromising the environment or the health, safety, and security of Canadians.

For a year, the commission criss-crossed the country, talking to companies, small-business owners, and associations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about what most frustrated them and what they would like to see changed. It hosted a total of 15 round-table sessions in 13 cities, attracting some 200 participants. There was also an online consultation and a dedicated website. Hundreds of ideas were shared, and our red tape reduction action plan, with the one-for-one rule as its cornerstone, is the result.

It is my honour today to share with the House how successful the implementation of the rule has been. During its first year of implementation, the one-for-one rule provided successful system-wide control of regulatory red tape impacting business. As of June 1, 2014, under the rule we had reduced the administrative burden by over $20 million and had achieved a net reduction of 19 regulations.

Allow me to demonstrate by way of a few examples.

Statistics Canada has amended regulations under the Corporations Returns Act used to collect financial and ownership information on corporations conducting business in Canada. With these changes, only corporations with revenues of more than $200 million, assets worth more than $600 million, or foreign debt and equity of more than $1 million will have to report financial and ownership information. As a result, more than 32,000 businesses will no longer be required to fill out a complex government return. We expect that this will reduce the administrative burden by about $1.2 million a year.

Here is another example. Employment and Social Development Canada is reducing the red tape burden and the cost to business by repealing a set of regulations that imposed unnecessary administrative requirements on construction companies awarded federal government contracts. With these changes, the estimated annual savings for business is more than $900,000.

We are also seeing savings at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, which has undertaken a project to modernize the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Mining Regulations. The proposal was recently pre-published in The Canada Gazette part I and will result in estimated annual savings for business of more than $600,000.

It is estimated that to date, the application of the one-for-one rule has saved businesses well in excess of 100,000 hours per year in time spent dealing with regulatory red tape.

Treasury Board enforces compliance with the rule, and I am pleased to report that compliance has been strong.

With these kind of results and more than two years of experience under our belts, it is time to make the rule a permanent feature of the federal regulatory system.

The Prime Minister has endorsed the one-for-one rule. The 2013 Speech from the Throne committed our government to putting the rule into law, and with the bill before us, we are delivering on that commitment. With this legislation, we are sending a clear signal that our government has an unmatched resolve to cut regulatory red tape for business while continuing to ensure the protection of Canadians and our environment. What is more, this legislation would backstop the one-for-one rule with a strong commitment to transparency and accountability through annual public reporting on its implementation.

We are not the only ones who think enshrining the one-for-one rule in law is a good idea. Here is a quote from Laura Jones, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, “The government implemented the one-for-one rule last year. Legislating it shows they are really serious about regulatory reform. It's important because it makes it much harder to undo”.

Cutting red tape and making regulatory processes as pain-free as possible is one of the most important things government can do to help Canadian businesses thrive, particularly in this time of global economic uncertainty. That is why the red tape reduction action plan gets rid of business irritants in areas such as payroll, labour, and trade and introduces time-saving measures like a single window and electronic submissions.

The red tape reduction action plan, which is being rolled out over three years, is one of the most far-reaching and ambitious red-tape-cutting initiatives in the world today. It encompasses a half-dozen fundamental systemic reforms in the way government regulates as well as some 90 specific changes individual departments will undertake.

Allow me to highlight the systemic reforms that are truly game changers for doing business in Canada. I have already spoken about the one-for-one rule, which has successfully controlled and even reduced the administrative burden in Canada, but I am pleased to add that our action plan also ensures that the needs and concerns of small businesses are considered when we regulate.

We are talking about businesses with fewer than 100 employees or with between $30,000 and $5 million in annual gross revenues. These businesses represent over 40% of Canada's private sector GDP and almost 50% of all the jobs in the private sector.

Small businesses are at the heart of Canada's entrepreneurial drive, yet because of their more limited resources, small businesses often feel the weight of the regulatory burden more acutely than others. We are tackling that reality by requiring regulators to use the small business lens for regulations that have a significant impact on small business. That will happen when a regulatory change imposes over $1 million in annual nationwide costs and has an impact on at least one small business.

Regulators now have to put themselves in the place of small business when they regulate. They have to ask themselves these questions: Is the information we are asking them for already being collected by another government department? Is there another way to regulate that is less burdensome? Most important, are we communicating in plain and understandable language?

I also want to emphasize that the burden of proof is not on business. It is up to the regulators to prove that they have done everything they can to minimize the costs for small business. All in all, there are 20 small business checklists that regulators have to fill out, publish, and have signed by their ministers as part of the submission package. This ensures that the impacts of new regulations on small businesses are considered in the earliest stages of design, and, if need be, are mitigated.

Because departments will have to post these completed checklists online, small-business owners will be able to judge for themselves how effectively the government is minimizing the regulatory burden. The one-for-one rule and the small business lens will bring a new discipline to how government regulates and how it is creating a more predictable environment for businesses.

This is part of our broader commitment under the red tape reduction action plan to improve service and become more accountable. We are introducing service standards for high-volume regulatory licensing, permitting, and certification processes. Businesses will now know how long they have to wait to receive these decisions.

As a former business owner, I have to interject that certainty is crucial to business potential. If entrepreneurs see opportunity, they must have certainty when they strike out. Specific timelines will help small businesses the most. Departments will publish these timeframes on their websites, and they will have to report on their website whether these targets are being met or not. For all these authorizations, businesses will also have access to a feedback mechanism they can use to register a complaint.

I am pleased to report that so far regulators have created service standards for 24 of these high-volume regulatory licensing, permitting, and certification processes, which cover more than 60,000 transactions with business each year.

One of the things that businesses often complain about is being surprised by unexpected changes to regulations that impact their investment plans. As part of the action plan, we are addressing that by requiring regulators to publish forward regulatory plans. These plans would identify anticipated regulatory changes over the next 24-month period. Business and consumers would be given an early warning of the government's intention to regulate. It gives that all-important predictability that they need to plan. It also allows businesses and consumers to provide their input into the design of new regulations.

Again, regulators are delivering, and so far, 32 forward regulatory plans from departments have been posted. In these plans, regulators have to identify if they expect the one-for-one rule and the small business lens to apply.

Treasury Board Secretariat is making it easy for business to find these plans through its government-wide roll-up page. That is to ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses have a heads-up on regulatory changes that are of interest to them. I encourage all businesses to stay abreast of these anticipated regulatory changes and to get involved in these consultations to make sure they are designed with their input.

None of these commitments are worth anything and an action plan is only a pile of paper unless we can prove we are fulfilling our promises, which is why we are keeping scrupulous track of just how much red tape we are cutting.

In January, the President of the Treasury Board had the honour of releasing the first annual scorecard on the red tape reduction action plan, so Canadians can know just how much progress we are making. The scorecard reports on system-wide changes to the regulatory system, particularly on the implementation of the one-for-one rule, service standards, forward planning and, of course, the small business lens. The scorecard is vetted by a regulatory advisory committee, and yearly results are provided to the Auditor General. These external business and consumer experts have reviewed the report, provided their unvarnished advice on its fairness and reliability, and endorsed it as a reasonable account of the progress made.

These are some of the top regulatory reforms in our action plan. Taken together, our government's red tape reduction action plan ensures that cutting red tape is part of the government's DNA. It goes further than we have ever gone before to meet the needs of business and to be accountable when we regulate, and it cements Canada's reputation as one of the best places in the world to do business and invest.

Tackling regulation is just one of the many fronts we are working on to create the conditions for businesses to succeed. From fiscal to tax policy, from regulation to immigration, we are empowering businesses to make the most of what they can be, but most importantly, collectively, to make the most of what Canada can be.

Our government understands that the way to create jobs and growth is to reduce barriers for businesses, not raise them. The bill before us today does that. It frees businesses to do what they do best: innovate, invest, grow and, of course, create jobs, which means it is a bill that would benefit all Canadians. That is why I strongly encourage all members to support the bill moving forward.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague; however, I have a question for him.

We regularly speak to people across Canada. I know that many of the small businesses in British Columbia are in the fishing and tourism sectors. I know from reading a letter from a gentleman from Penticton, Lloyd Creech, they are worried about the menace to the small businesses in fishing and tourism due to the approval of the northern gateway pipeline.

The government waited until the eleventh hour to do something for small and medium businesses. It spent the past two years concentrating on helping the oil lobby approve this terrible pipeline through British Columbia, against the interests of British Columbians.

Even though we are supporting this bill at second reading, I would like the member to comment on the worries that small businesses have because of the approval of the northern gateway pipeline in British Columbia.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I would start with first is I think it behooves this country and all Canadians to have a process in place to take advantage, the best advantage for everyone, of the estimated $650 billion of potential investment that can come through responsible resource development.

We need to have a process to separate the wheat from the chaff so that we know what projects can go ahead that are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

I have heard from people in my riding, some who advocate for the pipeline, some who advocate for its denial. Ultimately, we want to see jobs and the economy grow. When I talked to Mayor Litke at Penticton City Hall, he spoke of the need for infrastructure. Councillor Jakubeit has said that small businesses need to have a strong environment for them to grow.

The Red Tape Reduction Commission that travelled all across this country, 15 cities, 200 people, all those round tables, actually heard from British Columbia that we need to see interprovincial barriers to wine removed. Bill C-311 actually opened up that interprovincial transit of wine. This comes back to our strong steps on regulatory red tape.

We are supporting Canadians. We are making sure that good things happen for Canadian businesses.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his speech, but given the somewhat self-satisfied tone, one would think the Conservatives had created heaven on earth in this area, when in fact, for each carefully selected example of reduced red tape, we can come up with one or two of increased red tape. I will name two quickly, both in immigration.

In terms of waiting time for citizenship, the bureaucracy is such that the waiting time has doubled to two and a half years. If anyone has the misfortune of filling out this huge residency questionnaire, it goes up years and years more.

Perhaps even more telling, Mexican officials say that Canada is the hardest country in the western world for Mexicans to come into given the enormous amount of red tape surrounding the government's visa system.

Canadian officials take away passports when other countries do not. Canadian officials, by the department's own admission, have a stack of documents they have to fill in, way worse than other countries and with questions that are totally irrelevant. It has cost the tourism industry hundreds of millions of dollars. It has damaged business and diplomatic relations with Mexico simply because the government is drowning the Mexican tourist and individual entry system in red tape.

How can the member talk about reducing red tape when he is doing exactly the opposite in a very important area of public policy?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the approach the government is taking is to acknowledge the impact of red tape on all Canadians, particularly Canadian businesses, and that when government seeks to regulate, it should find the level of regulation that has the least amount of burden on businesses.

When a new regulation goes in, one of equal value has to come out, and this is done by a monetizing system to make sure that compliance is not onerous.

The member is part of a party which, when it had power, put the immigration system in such a state that Canadian businesses could not count on it and the backlogs were quite huge.

I think all Canadians want to ensure that when government puts things in place it recognizes that the Canadian taxpayer cannot end up paying for it.

We are recognizing that red tape has a cost. We are trying to take the burden off as much as possible. We are also making sure that we are accountable to taxpayers.

If the member had listened to my speech, he would see how the accountability mechanisms are very clear and even he could find them on the website.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak at a utilities forum in Washington, DC. Prior to my speech, there was an entire panel devoted to lamenting the regulatory state in the United States because of some of the issues that my colleagues brought up, including non-predictability, such as new regulations affecting capital investments, because it becomes a new determinant to capital investment. Also, there is the cost of not reviewing regulations on a regular basis, because there can actually be overlapping regulations which increase the compliance burden to industry.

I am wondering if my colleague could speak specifically to how this particular bill could actually provide a competitive advantage for foreign direct investment into this country, because we will have a predictable regulatory review system. As well, perhaps he could speak to how the ongoing review of regulations can actually provide a better economy, because we have a clearer system by which industry can see that regulations are reviewed for efficacy on an ongoing basis.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the minister for her work in making sure that our economy in the west is diversified and strong.

First of all, as I mentioned in my speech, the passage of this particular piece of legislation would send a signal that Canada is open for business and that we recognize there are legitimate costs that are borne by small and large businesses when the federal government regulates.

Again, I would go back to the three questions that the small business lens will ask.

Is the information we are asking for already being collected by another government department? This would reduce red tape.

Is there another way to regulate that is less burdensome? There are many ways to skin a cat, and I think this bill acknowledges that we should be looking at other options.

Are we communicating in plain language? Small business owners do not have time to research every rule. They need common-sense language so that they can know what they are doing.

Last, for foreign direct investment, nothing says opportunity than having low taxes and having an educated, strong workforce, but they also need to have regulatory certainty.

In British Columbia we have developed a number of coal mines. I have heard that Australian companies are looking at Canada because of our low taxes, because we have coal that they can mine, but also because of our regulatory certainty. They know that this government understands their needs and will regulate so that they and Canadians benefit, that their health and safety is protected, and that there are jobs and economic growth in British Columbia.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the bill suggests that the only exceptions to this rule would be in cases where public health and safety or the Canadian economy are affected. Which one would win when it is both? If we are making a regulation for public health and safety, but to make that regulation would hurt, say, a railway company, which in turn would hurt the Canadian economy, do we then abandon the regulation? Which one would win?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the one-for-one rule does not apply to areas of the Minister of Finance, so they can make sure that our regulations are strong in regard to the economy and on health and safety. Let us just take a step back. This is not the actual regulation of those areas. This is the compliance. For example, one could have a piece of paper with 20 pieces of information on it, some of which are not actually necessary in order to show compliance. By adding the small business lens, by adding the one-for-one, we are trying to make sure that when our regulators do regulate, it is done in as convenient and efficient process as possible, such as going to the single window for service or email submissions, which reduce costs. Again, this is not in dealing with health and safety like the member has said.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before getting to the substance of my speech, I would like to say a few words about the fact that the NDP is the only party that takes advantage of all possible speaking opportunities in the House. As we know, we are sitting until midnight on weekdays to debate various issues.

The Conservatives must have missed about 200 opportunities to speak. The Liberals have also missed a lot. They are absent from the debates. I find that deplorable. It is really too bad that we are not using all the speaking and debate time we have to discuss and duly represent our ridings, voters, constituents and people.

As you know, I am the small business deputy critic. I therefore have the pleasure of speaking to Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.

Bill C-21 includes the one-for-one rule. This rule requires the government to eliminate a regulation every time it adopts a new one. The government must also offset any new burden on small businesses, that is, time and money spent by businesses to demonstrate compliance with amendments to existing regulations, in order to ease the burden for businesses.

In addition, Bill C-21 stipulates that the president of the Treasury Board may establish policies or issue directives respecting the manner in which the rule is to be applied. He may also make regulations respecting the period within which measures must be taken to comply with the regulations, the manner of calculating the cost of an administrative burden, how the law will apply to regulations changed when the one-for-one rule came into effect, and the power to grant exceptions.

Although Bill C-21 claims to reduce red tape for businesses, it will actually make the president of the Treasury Board the arbiter of eliminating regulations. A very important point here is that the government claims to deal with something that is actually not that simple. When we meet with small and medium-sized businesses, we know that they would really like to be able to reduce red tape. However, we must be careful because this bill claims to reduce red tape, but, in fact, it is giving yet another discretionary power to the president of the Treasury Board.

Personally, I remember seeing other similar bills whose intent is often to provide greater authority and greater flexibility. For instance, Bill C-31 was meant to give greater discretionary authority to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, when a minister is given greater discretionary authority, this means that the rules may be good for some, and not so much for others. That is when things begin to fall apart and then, ultimately, things begin to get far more complicated and a lot harder to track. The minister has the authority to say yes in some cases and no in others, when in reality, the situations are identical. We cannot clearly rely on the rules.

Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Conservatives; we have seen this in the past. They have a habit of deregulating without any regard for the health and safety of Canadians. These are vital issues; there is no denying that. The Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, did not manage to defend the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

I must refer to the events that allow me to say today that the Conservatives are not there when it comes time to regulate appropriately. I will now bring them up. It is not easy to talk about these tragic events, but I need to.

The Lac-Mégantic tragedy put the important issue of rail safety in Canada back on the agenda following decades of Liberal and Conservative deregulation.

Let us look at other issues such as the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, which was ultimately kept open. For over two and a half years, the Conservatives wanted to close it down. After they threatened the centre with closure, they realized that what mattered was saving lives and that by looking to close the centre, they were endangering the lives of Canadians. In the next election, I will be sure to remind voters that the Conservatives hesitated for two and a half years. That is unacceptable. We cannot take shortcuts when people’s health and safety are at stake.

Let’s talk about another issue, again in Quebec City. As we know, the Port of Québec went through periods when the city’s air was contaminated with nickel dust. Once again, we need to ensure that there are regulations to protect the public. Normally, businesses are proud to be involved in making and enforcing regulations that benefit the public.

XL Foods was another big one. If the government cuts the number of food inspectors, such incidents should come as no surprise. There are fewer people on the ground doing inspections. When it comes to regulations, the government needs to think twice and make sure it is doing the right thing because it cannot make mistakes that could have a direct impact on the health and safety of Canadians.

In Bill C-21, only the preamble states that regulations affecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. No mention is made of the environment. It is not in the bill at all.

The same thing happened with the free trade agreements the government signed. Human rights and the environment were relegated to the sidelines even though we expected the federal government to sign free trade agreements containing clear measures. Now human rights and the environment are an afterthought. I think we can have economic development that prioritizes people's health and safety as well as their environment.

If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically guarantee the application of the bill and the regulations that protect people's health and safety? That could have been done. The government should make it a priority to implement regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians and their environment. This bill seems to completely disregard that obligation. We need more than the government's promises and the preamble of a bill because that could leave room for interpretation in the years ahead.

We want a guarantee that deregulation will not apply to those provisions, and we want it now. We have not been given that guarantee yet. Regulations that are in the public interest should be preserved. The idea is not just to limit, in theory, the number of regulations and determine which are good for Canadians and which are not. There has to be a reasonable way to undertake public administration. Giving more powers to the president of the Treasury Board is definitely not the way to ensure good public administration.

The many small business owners I have talked to agree that there should be less useless red tape.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization that I have met with on a number of occasions, estimates that business owners pay $30 billion in hidden taxes in the form of the time and money they spend completing forms and following government rules, and it believes that this needs to change.

I am proud to tell this organization that the NDP is always open to helping small businesses by eliminating useless red tape and letting them focus on what they do best: growing their business and creating jobs. The NDP remains a partner to SMEs.

Red tape is not the only thing that small business owners come to me about. They also regularly tell me that the Conservatives boast about helping small businesses by eliminating red tape, but that they did not renew the hiring credit for small business. It was not in budget 2014. However, businesses have been clear: this hiring credit is important. It gives them some breathing room. Even though it had the means to do so, the government deliberately decided to ignore SMEs and eliminate the credit. That is not surprising, coming from the Conservatives. This is a very important measure to help SMEs grow and to create more good jobs.

SME owners are unanimous in asking me when this government will finally take serious action to regulate the anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. If the Conservatives truly wanted to help SMEs, they would support the NDP's proposal to regulate the fees that credit card companies charge to merchants.

I meet with SME representatives and they show me their bills. They have been crippled by banking fees this year and their profits have decreased considerably. They sometimes even have to reconsider their decision to go into business. This goes for SMEs that have been in business for several years and those that are just getting started. Banking fees have gotten so high that SMEs have no choice but to take them into account. These fees cut into their profits and wages so much that owners start to wonder if they have made the right choice. That is not insignificant.

The Conservatives did diddly-squat. While small businesses are the ones creating most of Canada’s new jobs, they get very little attention from the Conservative government. In fact, this government preferred to give away billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks, starting with the oil companies, obviously. Even though they produce oil, they apparently need tax breaks. I have always thought that oil producers do not need any public money.

They gave away billions of dollars instead of supporting small businesses, the real job creators. This is why the NDP decided to support small business. There is nothing better than small businesses to turn around the economy of a region or a community. Profits made by a small business generally go toward developing the region. This money flows through the town or community where the small business is located. That also means local jobs. There is a lot less of a chance of outsourcing as well. This is why supporting small businesses pays off.

The Conservatives say they want to cut red tape, but they did quite the opposite with the building Canada fund.

Rather than helping municipalities and small businesses start their infrastructure projects within an acceptable time, the Conservatives created a long and cumbersome bureaucratic system for any project over $100 million. That will result in delays of 6 to 18 months, holding back major projects. Furthermore, this government has done nothing to make it easier for small businesses to secure government contracts. We saw it in committee; this should be made easier. Several associations have done their job and tried to make the government aware of this, but contracts should be broken up so that small businesses can access them. It would be worthwhile to make improvements in this area. It is practically impossible for our small businesses in Canada to compete with big corporations when bidding on government contracts, which are so long and complicated.

Over the coming months, the member for Sudbury and I intend to continue taking part in consultations with small businesses. Young entrepreneurs and family businesses are the key to a prosperous economy in Canada. That is why New Democrats will continue to work toward a pragmatic, common-sense solution in order to contribute to their success.

If the Conservatives sincerely wanted to help small businesses, they would not drag their feet and would take action against the excessive fees that credit card companies are charging merchants. Neither would they have, as I previously mentioned, eliminated the small business hiring tax credit in the 2014 budget. In this respect, I encourage all small business owners to write their MPs to let them know how important this tax credit was to them. The NDP intends to contact small businesses in all ridings and encourage them to help us make sure that the government understands once and for all that this tax credit helped create and maintain a lot of jobs. These are not unstable part-time jobs that will end in three months, but good solid jobs.

Again, the NDP believes in common-sense solutions for cutting red tape for small businesses. Allow me to mention something that the government should bear in mind: when we meet with SMEs they often tell us about the lack of collaboration between the different government bodies. We know that this Conservative majority government has a hard time getting along with its provincial and municipal counterparts. That is a serious problem. SMEs sometimes have to fill out forms at both the federal and provincial levels. There needs to be an agreement to make it easier and ensure that SMEs do not have to fill out the same form 10 times, send them to a number of different places and follow different criteria. Those who work 80 hours a week for their SME might not have the time in the evening to figure out how each body operates and so forth. To make things easier for the SMEs, we need a government that listens, that does not say that it does not care and then goes ahead without listening to a word anyone else has to say. We need a government that will listen.

When various situations came up in Quebec, I would have liked the federal government to listen more closely. Listening closely can pay off and make life easier. Today, we are all saying we would like to improve things. I think that the current approach is not exactly the one that should be used and I hope that the government will understand that. We will not approve the additional discretionary powers for the ministers. That is not what is needed here. We need to simplify the process.

If we get rid of one approach and replace it with another then the rule of “one plus one plus one minus one plus one” might further confuse the SMEs. They want us to decide on one way of doing things and keep it that way for 10 years so that they do not have to read a new instruction manual every time they have to fill out a form.

I will now take questions.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. We could talk about it for a long time. She clearly outlined the problem of government support for SMEs. She rightly mentioned that one of the major problems brought to our attention was credit card fees, which directly reduce SMEs' liquidity.

I would like to know whether my colleague believes that the one-for-one rule is the ultimate panacea, as we heard in the previous speech. Are there not better ways to promote small business development?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his comments. I know that the member for Louis-Hébert is very interested in the challenges facing businesses. He has also looked at important issues such as how businesses can use the Internet to increase their exports. He has done great work on that issue in recent years. I would like to congratulate him because he has some good ideas regarding SMEs that could be included in the NDP's new platform.

His question was about the one-for-one rule. I believe that there are better approaches. For every regulation that is eliminated, another is added. That is very confusing for people and SMEs that have to apply the rule. In my opinion, the government has not properly addressed the desired objective of cutting red tape. The Conservatives have missed the mark. This rule could be revisited because I believe that it does not take into account the health and safety of Canadians, as I mentioned several times. We are concerned about the fact that this is barely mentioned in the bill's preamble, which also does not mention the environment.