Debates of Jan. 26th, 2015

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend for her question and her comments. She seems to have her finger on the pulse of her riding and its small and medium-sized businesses.

It is no different in my riding. Small and medium-sized business owners usually tell me that tax returns are the hardest part, considering all the paperwork they have to submit. Tax returns are a lot more complicated for businesses than they are for individuals

This bill does nothing to make tax returns easier. People are wondering what the point of it is. What does it do to help most small and medium-sized businesses in this country, which, incidentally, employ the majority of Canadians? Helping such businesses is absolutely crucial.

This bill is really nothing but spin. All it does is send a vague message to the small and medium-sized business community that the government is thinking of them.

When the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business appeared before our committee, I expected her to be very excited about this bill. I thought that the Conservatives must have done their homework and consulted that organization. She simply told the committee that the bill was not bad. Is it even needed? It seemed to me that the spin had not really worked.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in some of the comments that my friend and colleague made about the bill. It sounded as though he may think that the one-for-one idea is a bit of a gimmick as it relates to the current government's commitment to actually removing red tape, especially in light of the fact that I hear from small- and medium-sized businesses that they are frustrated to the n^th degree when it comes to dealing with issues like eligibility on employment insurance forms, for example, and all of those issues. The government keeps piling on these requirements and does not seem to be worried about red tape.

As well, there was the point the member brought up on the infrastructure program. Municipalities have to jump through hoops that are delaying the moving of money out of government offices by upwards of 18 months now, I think he said. It is incredible, frankly.

I would like to ask the member to expand on what I think is his conclusion, which is that the bill and this one-for-one business are simply nothing more than a gimmick.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think it is very pertinent and it goes directly to the heart of the matter.

If we really wanted to help small and medium-sized businesses in this country, the first thing we would do is lay out all of the legislation and regulations that we have, determine whether they are redundant or are actually doing what they should, consult with the business community, and identify those that are the biggest problem.

When we talk to small and medium-sized businesses in our ridings, two things come up the most: human resources and the process of hiring somebody and the red tape surrounding that, and second, the red tape involved in paying taxes. Neither of these issues is addressed in the bill. This is why it is clear that it is a gimmick.

Small and medium-sized businesses do not know how the bill would positively affect them, and I do not blame them for wondering.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Health.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-21. It is a significant piece of legislation. A strong statement is being made, and maybe a certain expectation is being built up by the government.

I must say at the get-go that the government has not been very successful at meeting the expectations of Canadians, specifically small businesses, with respect to the government's getting rid of unnecessary red tape.

The member referred to the idea of having those regulations in front of us. We would need an exceptionally large table, because we are talking about literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that we would ultimately have to review, and that is just federal regulations. That does not mention provincial regulations and municipal regulations, all of which have a very significant impact on each and every one of us, in particular with a special focus on small businesses.

Within the Liberal Party, we have recognized that the potential growth, the potential valuable jobs into the future, will be provided by our small business sector. It is the mid-sized businesses that will be providing the hope into the future in terms of those valuable, important jobs that will feed our middle class and ensure that the Canadian economy continues to move forward or improves from where the Conservative Party has it today.

Bureaucracy and the public service as a whole, our civil servants, have done a phenomenal job in working with the regulations we currently have in place and ensuring that those regulations are being followed. It is our job to do what we can to try to minimize the regulations and at the same time make sure there is a strong sense of efficiency.

No one would question, at least within the Liberal Party, the need for strong regulations dealing with issues of safety, health care, food safety, and so forth. We have asked plenty of questions related to all three of those. In fact, earlier today, we were debating Bill C-46, which deals with pipeline safety. I had the opportunity to pose a question in regard to that issue.

Canadians recognize that regulations are not an option, but an absolute necessity. They provide a service that complements legislation and ensures that there are certain standards throughout our country to protect us. Whether it is health care, environmental safety, ensuring our pipelines are built satisfactorily, ensuring there are fines where they are appropriate, or ensuring that good quality product is produced and manufactured, and the whole nine yards, there is absolutely no doubt that regulations are of critical importance.

Having said that, I think it bears repeating, because I have heard many members from all sides of the House talk about regulations that are somewhat dated. There are a great number of regulations currently in place that are just not necessary.

Reviewing should not happen every four or five years but happen internally, virtually on an ongoing basis, at the micro end. We should look at regulations that could be deemed dated or no longer necessary and look at ways in which we can improve the system.

There was an interesting report done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It was suggested in the report that the cost of regulations to Canadian businesses was estimated in 2012 at $31 billion. That is a phenomenal cost. Obviously, a good part of that cost is necessary, but let me suggest that there is great room for improvement. When we look at it from a party's perspective, if we can identify ways in which we can improve the system and ensure that there is more efficiency, we can help small and medium-sized businesses.

By doing that, we would be helping the Canadian economy. We would be creating jobs, and possibly even raises in certain sectors. If small business owners were able to save money on some of that administrative work that they have to do every week, that money could be turned into a cost reduction of a consumer product or consumer service. It could be used as an increase in pay for the workers, which is something that I personally would highly recommend. There is so much more that can be done if we are successful at reducing the paperwork.

I would suggest that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been fairly consistent over the years. I am relatively new to Ottawa, having been here for just over four years now, but I have been a parliamentarian for 20-plus years. When I have had the opportunity to meet with members of those stakeholder umbrella groups, they have consistently said that there is a need to improve and get rid of red tape and make our system more efficient.

Even in the NDP-administered government in the province of Manitoba, there is a great deal of room for improvement. However, there is also room for improvement at the municipal level, and obviously there is room for a great deal of improvement here in Ottawa. That is why I posed the question for the minister responsible for Treasury Board about how he, as the President of the Treasury Board, along with his department, is trying to work with other levels of government to deal with the issue of administration costs, and what our expectations jointly are for small and medium-sized businesses in Canada.

I have been disappointed, in the sense that there does not seem to be any holistic approach to dealing with business people in particular. I do not say that lightly. I hear members talking about meeting with business people and what the business people have to say. Like them, for me it is something that is ongoing. I am constantly talking with entrepreneurs, almost on a weekly basis, and dealing with a wide variety of issues. One of the issues that comes up time and again is the issue of red tape, administration costs, and things of that nature. I truly believe that there are businesses that are no longer in existence because of the paperwork that was required to be in business.

Let us look at what it takes in order to even start a business these days. It is no easy task, whether it is having to register and fill out all the necessary paperwork for a name for one's business or whether it is meeting the requirements for an occupancy permit and everything that is involved in regard to that.

Often business people refer to the federal government as a collection agency for the government. Whether it is the collection of the provincial sales tax, which sadly is going up in Manitoba, or the GST, or employment insurance or pension benefits, all of these are very important, but look at the pieces of paper involved. How often do we find a great deal of repetition in all of it? Is it the most efficient way of dealing with and supporting our small and medium-sized businesses, along with others?

There is room for great improvement. We have lost jobs in Canada. We are not talking about dozens or even hundreds. We are talking about thousands of jobs. Why? It is not because of the entrepreneur's idea, desire and possible dream to own a business and employ Canadians. It is because of the overwhelming amount of paperwork. That is what it feels like to many small business owners in particular.

My gut feeling is the government has sensed that in our communities and that is why it has come up with Bill C-21. It is hard to oppose the bill, given it is making a statement in the general direction of reducing unnecessary regulations. However, I think it has a lot more to do with the government wanting to give an impression that it is sympathetic to what individuals and businesses are saying, which is they are quickly becoming overwhelmed with the amount of paperwork and duplication. The government could have done a great deal more in addressing this very important issue.

The government has brought in trade agreements. We in the Liberal Party have been very supportive. We understand the real value of trade. We are not scared of trade agreements for the simple reason we recognize Canada is a trading nation and in the long run it is in our best interest to develop, promote and encourage trade agreements. We differ from our New Democratic friends who tend to oppose free trade for rather bizarre reasons, but they have their own rationale and justification.

When we talk about trade, what are we really encouraging? The exporting and importing of goods. Canadian jobs are very dependent on that. Consumers benefit immensely from it.

To what degree has the government been able to deal with some of the barriers of regulations of trade? I believe there is a lot of room for improvement. I have had discussions with individuals who get exceptionally frustrated because their product is being held at the border waiting to get paperwork through, or there are issues surrounding tariffs, or what should be deemed what. There are a great number of complications. The bottom line is that it causes delays and those delays have significant impacts on our communities in all regions of our country.

At times, the government seems to move in a general direction in certain areas, which we can support. However, more often than we would like to see, it is caught falling short on the important issues that affect us all, and we should be giving those issues more attention. That is why I posed the question for the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the issue of leadership. To what degree has the treasury minister or any other minister worked with the different levels of government?

Members should put themselves in the shoes of individuals who want to open a small business such as selling widgets, or a restaurant or whatever it might be. They do not necessarily care what level of government is causing the issues related to the amount of paperwork. They understand that there is a certain amount of paperwork involved in owning a business. I think where they are less sympathetic is when the government as a whole does not respond to what they feel are overwhelming situations at times, where there is just too much being asked of them, especially when in certain situations they do not have the financial means to meet those requirements without substantial cost. Quite often family business members are making less than minimum wage in order to sustain the business.

The government needs to be more sympathetic. Therefore, when I posed the question for the President of the Treasury Board, I was hoping the minister would tell me that the government was proactively working with other levels of government, while at the same time reviewing its regulations to see what it could do to better enhance the overall efficiency in the bureaucracy or in the filling of forms. How wonderful it would be to have a portal on the Internet which would assist our small businesses more directly and efficiently. We will need more co-operation and collaboration among our partners of Confederation to make that happen. It is an admirable goal. It means we have to work with others. We in the Liberal caucus are not scared to work to make a difference.

As my time is quickly running out, I will conclude where I started, by emphasizing just how important our small and medium-size businesses are to our economy and to our social and economic fabric.

I believe we could be doing so much more. Regulations is just one aspect of it but it is an important one. We recognize the great deal of frustration. If we take a more proactive approach in dealing with some of those frustrations, at the end of the day we will see more successful businesses. With that success, we will witness more employment, better pricing for consumers and better wages, which is one of my personal favourites.

I want to stress how important regulations are with respect to the issues of safety and health. We need to stay on top of this and that is why we are here.

As an example, today the government brought forward the bill on the pipeline safety act. It is important that we hold the government accountable when it is about to make significant changes to the regulations.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, reducing red tape is a complex issue. The idea that a simple solution can fix a complex problem is a recurring theme in this Conservative government. Often it does not work. The simple solution is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It does not fix a complex problem.

The one-for-one rule, in what the government is proposing, is a perfect example of a solution that mathematically equals nothing. One for one equals zero. It is quite something to come up with a solution that equals nothing. I have an example to illustrate how complex this can be. The tax program whereby SMEs can get an innovation tax credit is falling apart. People in SMEs tell us that there is no additional red tape and there are no new forms. The problem instead has to do with the number of documents that need to be attached and the number of times they have to contact federal officials. SME owners say that it can cost them up to 35% of the tax credit to administer all this. This is not just about red tape. It is much more complex than that.

I would like to point out to my colleague from Winnipeg North that a real NDP administration will tackle the SMEs' red tape problem. It will address this complex problem and will have the advantage of being able to consult our leader, who has almost 30 years' experience in public service. He understands these complex problems. When we present complex but effective solutions, he will know what solutions to implement in order to move things along.

What worries me about the Liberals is that the leader has no experience whatsoever in such matters. It will be very difficult to come up with complex solutions with a leader who has had practically no management experience in his entire career. I would like to know whether my colleague has some thoughts about this rather blatant problem with the Liberals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I believe the member has overvalued his leader's experience. As best I can tell, the leader of the New Democratic Party is in desperate need of stronger leadership skills in order to deal with many of the complex issues.

At the end of the day, it is about working with Canadians.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

You've got to be kidding. You need a leader with some depth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I see they are a little antsy on that. The truth hurts. I can appreciate the member's spin lines. He has some spin lines and he should stick with them.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Spin lines? You have the truth.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It is the first day back. I did not hear anything unparliamentary, but it seems to have provoked some disorder in the House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North can continue with his response and then we will go to questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on the leader of the official opposition at least for now.

When we look at the legislation before us, one of the priority areas, for example, would be to look at how we might provide better services. That can be done by looking at target processing times, for instance. If we want to go beyond the rhetoric of red tape, there are some tangible things we could be doing that would actually make a difference. I cited a couple of them during my comments. If there is strong leadership that is prepared to work with others, as the leader of my party has clearly demonstrated by working with the premiers, we can make a difference. By co-operating, working with others and bringing in initiatives that will support small businesses, we would be creating more jobs in Canada.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the mid-1990s, and even since the Liberals were in power, there has been an increase in the deregulation of rail and air transportation. The Conservatives have also undermined environmental protections. Bill C-21 seems to be just another exercise in deregulation, which was initiated by previous federal governments.

I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to talk about the dangers of eliminating regulations that protect Canadians' health and safety and the environment. The Conservatives claim that Bill C-21 will help reduce the administrative burden of SMEs. However, does this not appear to be just another step in the process of deregulation initiated by the Liberals?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, she seems to be of the opinion that there is no room for deregulation, meaning looking at regulations that might be somewhat dated and useless and getting rid of them.

I would disagree with the member. I believe that there are many regulations that need to be gotten rid of. I suspect that if the member canvassed some of her caucus colleagues, she would find that even some of her own caucus colleagues would agree with that statement. Having said that, I emphasized in my comments just how important regulations are in our society. What I emphasized was health care. I emphasized safety. I even talked about the environment. These are all important. That is one of the reasons we have regulations.

I can assure the member and viewers that regulations are a priority for the Liberal Party. We are concerned, and we are going to make sure that there are strong practical regulations to ensure that there is safety in health care and for issues dealing with the environment.

Regulations are necessary. Where we disagree is that some regulations on the books today are somewhat redundant, and we believe it is best to get rid of them to try to make our system more efficient.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Winnipeg North misunderstood. He simplified the whole thing by saying that his party will work with others because of his leadership. That is not the problem. When other people come to work with us, they must have the experience required to understand complex solutions.

The deregulation of the railroad, most of which was done by the Liberals, contributed to the current state of affairs and led to a number of disasters. We need to find more complex and intelligent solutions. We need to keep the regulations in place while simplifying the way in which they are administered. If I am given the mandate to find solutions and I can consult someone with a great deal of experience, that will help. However, the Liberals cannot say the same.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has 24 or 25 years of parliamentary experience and who has been in a provincial legislature that deals with the administration of many different areas, including health and safety, I like to think I have plenty of experience.

That does not necessarily mean that because of that specific experience I am the best person for the job. Quite often it is the individuals we work with who empower us to make the decisions necessary to get the job done. That is what we should be trying to achieve.

I have seen some pretty questionable characters who had plenty of years of experience. Just because they had the experience does not mean they were the best. Someone could have a lot of experience but be worth very little.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka for his insightful comments earlier on the importance of Bill C-21. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the House for allowing me to rise today to speak to why I think it is important to support Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

As members know, Bill C-21 is an important piece of legislation when it comes to how the government relates to and engages with one of the drivers of Canada's economy, which is small business.

As one of the members of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I feel privileged to rise to speak to this issue today. One of the key drivers of the commission was that helping businesses succeed in Canada requires doing all we can as a government to decrease the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. Bill C-21 represents a strong step toward accomplishing this goal for many reasons.

In my time today, I would like to focus on one of those reasons in terms of the importance of enshrining into law the government's one-for-one rule. This rule, which has been in effect since April 1, 2012, has already proven to be effective in controlling and even reducing red tape regulations that hurt small business. It works by placing strict controls on the growth of regulatory red tape for businesses by applying a very simple principle: for every new regulation that is added that imposes an administrative burden on businesses, one must be removed. In addition, regulators must offset any increase in the administrative burden as a result of regulatory changes with equal reductions in existing regulations.

Canada is one of the first countries in the world to give the one-for-one rule the added muscle of legislation, making it the most aggressive red tape regulation in the world. What is more, we know that it works. The one-for-one rule has already proven successful in system-wide controls and regulatory red tape that impact businesses. Specifically, as of June 14, 2014, it has resulted in a net annual reduction of over $22 million in the administrative burden imposed on businesses, estimated annual savings of 290,000 hours in time spent dealing with regulatory red tape, and a net reduction of 19 federal regulations taken off the books.

By giving the one-for-one rule the added muscle of legislation, this Conservative government has clearly demonstrated just how committed it is to reducing unnecessary regulations for businesses. We know that time spent navigating red tape is valuable time that small-business owners could otherwise use to grow their operations and create jobs.

When I speak about red tape, I am referring to the unnecessary and undue compliance burden placed on small businesses. A compliance burden is exactly the time and resources spent by businesses to demonstrate compliance with federal government regulations. It can include planning, collecting, processing, and reporting information; completing forms and retaining data required by governments; inspection costs; and time wasted waiting for regulatory decisions and feedback.

There are many areas of Canada's economy that benefit from discreet regulation, like safe food, air space control, workplace health and safety, and so on. However, every regulation that requires paperwork, equipment, or training imposes compliance costs on a business. At some point, regulations get into diminishing return territory when the cost, time, and effort required to comply with the regulations outweigh the benefits conferred by the regulation.

Our Conservative government recognizes this red tape problem, and through measures like the one-for-one rule, it is taking measures to curb it.

A couple of years ago, I participated in the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which consulted a wide cross-section of Canadians for ideas on reducing the onerous administrative overhead for Canadian businesses. What I heard was the feedback of hard-working small-business owners who were absolutely fed up with over-regulation, tedious paperwork, and valuable time wasted.

This past week, I stood proudly by our Prime Minister, fellow members of Parliament, and the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, Laura Jones, in the Niagara region. Through talking to and hearing the stories of small businesses within my riding as well as Canadian small-business representatives like Ms. Jones of the CFIB, one thing becomes immediately clear: red tape heavily limits the ability of small businesses to grow.

I would add that the CFIB had Red Tape Awareness Week last week, from January 19-23. This is actually very good timing as we introduce this legislation. I would also mention that I had a chance to work with Ms. Jones on the red tape reduction round table, and it was a great experience.

To put it in the words of our Prime Minister, red tape and administrative burdens all represent “a silent killer of jobs” in this country. Although Canada has been recognized by the OECD as having a sophisticated and mature regulatory system that continues to maintain high levels of health, safety, security, and environmental protection, the OECD has also recommended that reducing undue regulatory costs would help to improve Canada's economic performance.

Let me be clear. Applying the one-for-one rule and giving it the legislative shape it requires to fulfill its mandate does not in any way compromise the presence of important health and safety regulations. Put simply, we are not repealing health and safety standards. We are making it less of an administrative nuisance to comply with them.

Canadians can count on this government and its regulatory system to uphold the public trust and to continually enforce the health and safety standards that protect everyday Canadians.

One of the aspects of the red tape reduction plan I am most proud of is the level of public consultation and transparency that informed its approach. As a government, we listened to the advice provided by small-business owners from across the country, and we reflected very carefully on that advice.

We understand the necessity of enforcing regulations that maintain Canada's high standards for safety and protection. We believe that regulations can and should co-exist with freeing businesses from unnecessary, costly, and time-consuming red tape.

I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that reducing regulatory red tape was one of the commitments we made to Canadians in October 2012, when we first announced the red tape reduction action plan. This plan is one of the most aggressive in the world today for reducing red tape, and with its implementation, Canada is bringing a new level of discipline to how we regulate and create a more predictable environment for businesses.

I would like to update members on the progress we have made in this important effort. In all, the red tape reduction plan introduced six system-wide reforms to the federal regulatory system to limit regulatory creep and to free up small businesses to focus on what they do best, which is to grow and create jobs.

This plan has helped businesses meet challenges in the areas of payroll, labour, and trade. It has further introduced time-saving measures, such as single windows and electronic submissions.

We have made substantial progress in implementing the reforms outlined in the plan. As well as the one-for-one rule, a number of other reforms are advancing well. For example, federal regulators have stepped up efforts to ensure that new and existing service standards are publicly posted, making the approval process for complying with regulations more transparent for business. In addition, departments have posted 40 forward regulatory plans on their websites, providing early notice of upcoming regulations so that stakeholders can provide input and prepare for their implementation.

All of these initiatives are proving their value and are further demonstrating this government's commitment to a transparent and safe system for business growth that is not weighed down by unnecessary red tape.

We have also saved small businesses in Canada $75 million annually through the application of the small business lens.

In the fall of 2014, the government published the administrative burden baseline, a key commitment of the action plan that clearly tracks the total number of requirements that impose administrative burdens on businesses.

Finally, we have also put into place a regulatory advisory committee. This committee's main task is to provide the President of the Treasury Board with advice on the fairness and reliability of the government's annual scorecard report.

We recently published our second score card report during Red Tape Awareness Week. It shows that we continue to eliminate unnecessary rules and costs that have been a source of frustration for Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs across the country, while maintaining high standards for the protection of the health and safety of our citizens.

The bottom line is that this report confirms that we have made tangible progress in cutting red tape for Canadians and businesses.

Let me now turn to a few examples of how departments are putting the red tape action plan into action. There are numerous examples. I am thinking of the launch of buyandsell.gc.ca at Public Works and Government Services Canada and the modernization of food safety regulations through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Safe Food for Canadians Act.

There is also the launch by Canada Revenue Agency of the new online mail service for Canadian small businesses. The service allows businesses to communicate with CRA online, helping streamline their interactions with the agency.

CRA also launched My Business Account, the online enquiry service where business people or their representatives can ask the agency tax-related questions about their accounts online and receive answers online. I know one of the things we heard over and over again was the frustration of business people to call and not be able to get anything actually in writing. That made it difficult for them when they called someone, were bounced around, and went to different people. This is a very direct response to what we heard in talking to small business people.

As well, CRA introduced a one-stop web page for businesses, allowing them to easily find information and service options relevant to their tax situation.

In addition, Statistics Canada has improved communication with survey respondents to better explain the purpose of business surveys. The changes include redesigning printed material and improving a section of its website.

These are just a few of the many departmental actions that are under way to reduce red tape. The one-for-one rule and other red tape reforms demonstrate our resolve to improve Canada's regulatory system and help businesses focus their energies on seizing new opportunities. They are part of the broader commitment to ensuring Canada is playing its A game when it comes to creating the right environment in which businesses can grow and create jobs.

Bill C-21 is smart legislation that would help Canadian businesses become more productive and succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. The red tape reduction act would require that regulators take seriously the requirement to control the amount of red tape imposed upon businesses, and the related costs. The legislation is also designed to be tough. It would challenge regulators to think through how regulations could be designed and implemented in ways that would not impose unnecessary red tape on businesses. While it would be tough, it would nevertheless offer a great deal of flexibility. The government's commitment to maintaining Canada's high standards for health and safety is unwavering and will not come at the cost of helping small businesses succeed.

The legislation would also be timely. As members know, one of the government's top priorities is creating a climate in which businesses can innovate, invest in the future, and create economic growth and jobs. That is why, despite what is happening in the global economy today, Canada has and continues to post one of the strongest job creation records in the G7, with more than 1.2 million jobs created since July 2009.

I would add that over 85% of those jobs created since July 2009 are full-time positions and almost two-thirds are in high-wage industries.

Looking ahead, this government believes Canada is positioned for sustained economic growth. We are one of the few countries that can boast of having both declining taxes and low debt. Our government remains committed to eliminating the deficit. This would ensure we continue to create a business climate here in Canada that invites investment, prosperity, and growth. Canadian businesses have to be playing at the top of their game to succeed and to compete in a global economy. This is especially true in uncertain times, such as those we have faced since the 2008 global recession. By reducing debt, we could free up tax dollars that would otherwise be absorbed by interest costs. We could then reinvest that money into things that matter to Canadians, such as health care, public services, or lower taxes. I would add that reducing debt would also strengthen the country's ability to respond to economic shocks, such as global financial crises.

It is worth remembering that, when the hard times arrived in 2008, Canada was in a position of economic strength compared to our international partners. This allowed us to put in place one of the most comprehensive stimulus packages in the world. At the time, international observers such as the International Monetary Fund were predicting that Canada would have one of the fastest recoveries. I am proud to say that these predictions have come true, given our relative economic, financial, and fiscal strength.

Our red tape initiatives all demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to helping Canadian businesses succeed, and they are part of a broad strategy that is present in almost everything we do. We only need to look at the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study analyzing the ease of paying taxes in 189 countries. The study, called “Paying Taxes 2014”, found that a business in Canada takes 25% less time than a business in the United States to prepare, file, and pay its taxes each year. Furthermore, the study said that Canada is the only G7 country to rank among the top 10 countries based on the overall ease of complying with tax obligations.

Balanced budgets and responsible fiscal management have been keys to helping small businesses succeed, as well as to our success as a country.

Through real action such as enshrining the one-for-one rule in law, we are making the regulatory system more conducive to economic growth. We are creating a more predictable environment for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, and we are freeing entrepreneurs from the burden of regulatory red tape.

Our government is focused on the drivers of growth and job creation—innovation, investment, education, skills, and communities—underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning to a balanced budget. This is our plan for Canada. I hope members of the House will join us in enshrining the one-for-one rule into law to help Canadian businesses succeed.

I talked about how this all fits together and I look at the acronym TIRE, which this government has used: T is for taxes and trade; I is for infrastructure, investments, and immigration; R is for R and D, red tape reduction, and relationships; and E is for entrepreneurship. If I could just go through those, members will see how it all ties together. I talked in my speech about how we look at reducing red tape, but that is just one thing in a large array of things that the government has done to make Canada more competitive.

I will start with the T for taxes and trade. Our government looked at reducing taxes for business to make us more competitive on the world stage. In addition to that, we have fostered additional trade deals—the European free trade deal and all the numerous deals that this country is working on right now—because we realize, as a net exporter, that we need to sell our goods and services around the world. There is no way that 35 million people could sustain the type of GDP that we have come to enjoy without the ability to trade. That is the T in TIRE.

I is for infrastructure, investments, and immigration. We have continued to move forward on immigration reforms to make sure we look at bringing the best and brightest people into this country. We have looked at continuous investments. We look at the Detroit bridge that stalled under the previous Liberal government. We have worked hard to make sure we can get our goods and services to the U.S. in a timely way given the fact that it represents one of our largest trading partners at over 75%. We have spent money on massive infrastructure, and we will continue to commit to infrastructure over the next 10 years as we realize that is important for the sake of our country.

I talked about R and D and trying to make it more targeted, more specific, and more timely. I have just spent my whole time talking about red tape reduction, which is absolutely huge.

The last letter is E for entrepreneurship. Our government has started a venture capital fund, or we have set aside $400 million where we could try to attract, realizing that it is tough sometimes for companies to get started. One of the issues that continues to be there is access to capital. We believe we can continue to create the climate in this country. We will not only continue to lead the world in development but will continue to lead the world in jobs, and Canada will be the best country in the world in which to live, to work, and to play.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciate the member's comments, but I would add a D to the end of his TIRE for a done government, and it is a tired argument.

We see in the legislation before us the ideology of one for one versus that of proper regulation when it comes to new products and entry into the market.

I would ask the member this. When a new product comes in--and it could be a new tablet, a device, or something different--why would we apply the one-for-one rule when we actually have to build in regulations that are new?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, one of the things we will not jeopardize is the health and safety of Canadians, and that is something we will continue to look at. However, it is only practical, as we look at increased regulations or the threat of increased regulations and rules, that we manage all these things. We understand that if we want to bring in a rule or regulation that there may be other ones that we need to remove to make sure that we continue to keep the burden of red tape down.

One of the things that concerns me is the fact that, as a government, we have done a great job in reducing red tape but there is still more work to be done at the provincial and municipal levels. I think that one of the biggest challenges we have is that we go ahead and reduce red tape, which is good for businesses, but the provinces need to also step up to do these things, as well as the municipalities.

When I talk to small business people, they tell me that one of the biggest challenges they have is complying with all the paperwork, the forms, and all the things that need to be done.

I will just reiterate for the member that we have no intention of jeopardizing the health and safety of Canadians, which is paramount in what we do. However, we need to find ways to help our business people succeed, by making sure we remove some of the obstacles that make it difficult for them to do what they need to do, which is create jobs and wealth for people in this economy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about reducing red tape, but with so much of what the current government does, it is more deception than reality.

For example, the member talked about the infrastructure program. The government did announce the biggest infrastructure program in Canadian history, but the problem is that the money does not really flow until about 2019, and so that will not do a lot of good for Canadians.

The Conservatives have been talking about reducing red tape for years, but when I talk to small businesses they are still complaining about the burdens they face in terms of paperwork.

My last point is that the member mentioned that the Conservatives will not undermine Canadians' health and safety. However, we have seen recently on the safety side, with the RCMP, that the recommendations from the reports on Mayerthorpe and Moncton were not acted on. The reason they were not acted on is that the resources were not there in terms of personnel and finances to put in place the equipment, training, and weaponry for the RCMP to do its job.

There is a lot of deception on that side and not much reality.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to address some of the things the member talked about, I mentioned that as we look to streamline the regulatory burden or framework, the challenge still remains that we have provincial and municipal legislation, red tape, and regulations, which continue to be a challenge.

I know that a number of years ago the Progressive Conservative government in Ontario had a red tape reduction commission under Mr. Harris that looked at reducing some of these things. Unfortunately, what has happened over time is that additional burdensome red tape has crept back in, which is one of the things we need to be mindful of, and I know that is what the one-for-one rule does. It is trying to create a new mindset when we look at how we can do this. In my remarks I talked about different agencies and government bureaucracies posting online what they are thinking about doing and then working with industry to find a way to actually do a good job with it.

I think it is a mindset that we need to look at. We could go around the country and consult, but unless we are prepared to sit down and make it a part of the way we look at how we do business, then I think we will have a hard time making it stick. I know that—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the speech from my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook. In fact, one of the things about this chamber that is regretful is that often we do not hear about the actual resumés, the curriculum vitae, of individual members, which sometimes are very robust. This particular member has one of those.

Rather than talk about the program at the level he was speaking of in regard to government, municipalities, and provinces, I wonder if he would share personally, because he was a very successful small-business owner prior to being elected, what it is like for an entrepreneur who has narrow margins, who is trying to find the right people to work for him to be effective, to deal with municipal, provincial, and federal regulations. How tough is it when there is an extra layer of burden on an entrepreneur? What does it mean to an entrepreneur who may or may not be able to balance his or her books at the end of the month, end of the quarter, and end of the year?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges small-business people have in this country is that they are expected to wear many hats. When a small-business person, a man or woman, starts a business, he or she needs to be part HR, part finance, part marketing, part administrator, and operator.

What we heard from people across the country was this. I remember sitting around the table, and it was the same thing, whether it was in Ontario or B.C. It was what they are required to provide. Sometimes there is duplication. Sometimes it is like they are being asked the same thing two or three times, whereas if they just talked internally, they would actually have what they need.

In larger companies, there are finance people and accounting departments that will handle some of those things. I think of what happens when a company goes public. One of the biggest things that happens when a company goes public is that its accounting department swells by two, three, four, or five times because of the amount of compliance it is required to have when it is publicly traded. We get that.

What we are talking about are the small-business people who have to do multiple things. Maybe they have to pull a shift, because someone called in sick, or maybe they have to figure out how they are going to hire someone and put ads in the paper, et cetera.

We are looking at not affecting the safety and security of Canadians. We are trying to remove some of the duplication. We are trying to ensure, as I mentioned in my speech, that we take a small-business lens approach, which is absolutely key if we are going to look at it from a small-business point of view. Yes, we still require these things, but how can we make it easier for small-business men or women to provide all these things and still run their businesses successfully and create the jobs we need as Canadians?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I support anything that reduces the red-tape burden on small businesses. My father ran a small business on Cape Breton Island, and my late father used to have a bulletin board with a big headline: “The Government of Canada Never Sleeps”. He would post the things he had been required to fill out, for the enjoyment of tourists.

I want to follow up on the point my friend made about debt. It is not part of this bill, but he made the point that it was important to pay down debt. I am concerned that we are not paying attention to the fact that Canada's national debt is now larger than it has ever been before. It is over $600 billion. The current Prime Minister presided over 24% of that debt-building. It is going to be $29 billion this year in interest payments.

I know that my hon. colleague is not the Minister of Finance, but I am wondering if he has any crystal ball as to whether his administration has any plans to pay down the debt or is just interested in trying to spend money.