Debates of May 3rd, 2023

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member opposite's good-faith question, the reality is that it is the Liberal House leader who will ultimately make the decision when each of the bills before Parliament is brought to a vote. It is a negotiation with the Liberals' coalition partners, the NDP, and the official opposition, the Conservatives.

I spoke in good faith to Bill S-6. Many of the regulations related to the Health of Animals Act on biosecurity, I think, are really relevant. It is a good bill, but ultimately, in terms of its passage and when we come to a vote on it will be determined by whether or not the Liberal House leader is willing to work with the official opposition to make sure that bills are properly scrutinized and debated accordingly.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I still find it rather ironic to hear my colleague say that he is prepared to move to a vote on the bill when he feels so inclined, while also making a rather convincing plea for public servants to be more efficient when it comes to bureaucracy. There is a bit of a contradiction there.

How does my colleague feel about that? Does he not think we could move on to the next item on the agenda and move forward to set an example for our government with regard to improving bureaucracy?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is right, we need to streamline regulations where necessary and strengthen regulations to protect our food here in Canada. We have a lot of work to do.

Sometimes we need to streamline regulations. Other times, we need to strengthen them to meet demands and bring our economy into the 21st century.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise just to give recognition to the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. He seems to have a certain je ne sais quoi, a certain flair that the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière seems to have. I have appreciated that in his delivery of petitions.

It seems to me, based on his speech, that he has a newfound passion for an elected Senate, one that has mixed member proportional representation, one that allows for true democracy to happen. I would love to hear the member talk about ways in which we can make the Senate more accountable, beyond the patronage appointments of the past Conservative and Liberal governments.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me just say equal, elected and effective.

The first action I ever took as a Canadian in a democratic process was to put a wonderful reform party of Canada sign on my dad's front lawn. From that day on I learned about how the Senate has under-represented my province since its inception into Confederation and that one day, through economic reconciliation with first nations, we might see British Columbia gain its proper place in this federation. However, we cannot do it without working with indigenous Canadians so they can take control of their lives. Get the Indian Act out of the way. Let them flourish through resource development and partnering with businesses to create a new life and new opportunity for young people, especially young indigenous peoples across our great country.

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

Madam Speaker, I think we are all astonished by the turn this debate has taken on modernizing regulations.

I just wanted to express to the member some degree of sympathy that the electoral boundary redistribution will deprive him of representing the town of Ashcroft and the extraordinarily vital and engaged citizenry. As well, I think he is losing Lytton, which we already lost in action. It has not moved. I am not being facetious about losing Lytton. We shall never lose Lytton. It must be rebuilt.

Does the hon. member think it is inevitable that his boundaries are redrawn in that fashion?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the good-faith question. On the redistribution process, the member knows that Fraser Canyon and all of those communities have a special place in my heart, as they do for her.

I think Ashcroft is like the Sedona of Canada. It has such a bright future. There are so many amazing things going on there. It is one of the few ecological zones in Canada that are actually a desert. It is beautiful and I encourage everyone to visit the village of Ashcroft.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Cache Creek. There is flooding going on in Cache Creek, which has increased every year since the 2017 Elephant Hill fire. In fact, since that time, we have lost the fire chief to a previous flood. It just goes to show how much work we have to do on climate mitigation and adaptation for small communities like Cache Creek in order to give them a future, so they are not subject to these annual floods, which tear apart businesses and people's homes.

My staff will continue working hard to support Lytton. We have made progress. We are working in good faith with all parties. Building permits can be issued now, but we have so much more to get done.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, seeing that my hon. colleague is so enthusiastic, I would like to ask him if he is ready to entertain the idea of separatists being appointed to a reformed Senate. I am not saying that we would go there.

I am curious if he would be ready to entertain even that idea. It does represent the opinion of a significant number of Quebeckers.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, every Canadian, even Quebeckers who do not believe in Canada, has the right to vote according to their conscience, and to even vote for an elected Senate.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the turn this has taken. I am learning so much about the hon. member. In his passionate remarks, he used a phrase that Conservatives like to use, which, quite frankly, is made up. It is this idea of “economic reconciliation”. If the member wants to have true reconciliation, I would love for him to put on the record the ways in which his government, if elected, would remove the red tape in its entirety by just giving land back. That would be true reconciliation with first nations on all the legal fictions that were made under the treaties.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague forgot to point out that we need to abolish the Indian Act. I also said that in my debate tonight. We have so much work to do.

It is not me stating that they want economic reconciliation. It is the Stó:lo Nation pushing to have more control over forestry tenure so that it can take control of its own resources.

That is why I am pleased to outline again that the Conservative Party is taking an indigenous-led process to develop a new way to reconceive how we develop natural resources in Canada. Many of the first nations constituents I represent, like those in Lytton, benefit a lot from some of the economic development already taking place and receive large sums of money. One member was telling me that the Lytton tribal council receives over $1 million a year in remittances. It entered that agreement in good faith with Teck Resources.

We have so much to do, but ultimately, we are not going to get there until, as the member pointed out, the indigenous people of Canada have more control over their lands.

Foreign Interference and Alleged Intimidation of a Member

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

As my colleague from Ontario mentioned, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following at pages 107 to 108:

In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member's actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.

This is long-standing and well-established procedure and principle of the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to an April 12, 1733, resolution of the British House of Commons, which states:

That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing of any member of this House in his coming to or going from the House or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.

Of course, there is a difference between exercising the fundamental democratic right to enter into political debate and criticizing elected members of the House for the stands they take. As members know, Joseph Maingot, at page 235 of his work Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, articulates the appropriate balance between free debate and intimidation and coercion.

...all interferences with Members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of Members in their parliamentary work. Accordingly, not every action by an outside body that may influence the conduct of a Member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the Member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course. But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a Member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case.

Bosc and Gagnon, at page 109, observe that:

In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.

In our opinion, that is definitely the case here. A “proceeding in Parliament” is a technical term for which Bosc and Gagnon, at page 90, refer to two definitions. The first is from Erskine May, and the second is from Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.

Erskine May's definition at page 235 of the 24th edition of Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament states the following:

An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking.

The Australian statutory definition, meanwhile, contains the expression “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House”.

Speaker Lamoureux, on September 19, 1973, said, at page 6709 of the Debates, that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”

This is quite obviously an attempt at intimidation.

On May 1, 1986, Speaker Bosley held, at page 12847 of the Debates, “If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.”

Subsequently, Speaker Parent, on March 24, 1994, commented, at page 2706 of the Debates, “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.”

More recently, on March 6, 2012, a prima facie contempt was found, arising from an intimidation campaign of YouTube videos from the Internet, by hacking collective Anonymous, largely targeting a former colleague and his family members as a consequence of legislation this colleague tabled in the House.

In so ruling, the Speaker said, at page 5834 of the Debates: “Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate. In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters. However, when duly elected members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously.”

I would echo those words, “this House must take the matter very seriously.” Just as it is a novel concern in this recently surfaced story, which is still unravelling, that is not a procedural impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of contempt here.

On this particular point, Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 81: “The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.... This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.”

I therefore support the question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I hope the Chair will make a ruling on this important matter soon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The matter has already been taken under advisement by the Chair. We thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that many of us are not used to being here this late in the evening, but maybe we are not really here and this is all a dream, because I have difficulty believing that the government is actually doing something about this mountain of red tape that Canadians face. While it is true that Bill S-6 would not do much, at least we are doing something.

Before the people of Edmonton Manning asked me to represent them here, I was a business owner. For over 20 years, I worked to build a company that had not only domestic but international sales. I have first-hand experience in how the excessive regulations and red tape this government imposes on business hurt Canadian companies and prevent them from being competitive—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask the hon. members who want to have conversations to please go to the lobbies.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the second interruption from the other side for some reason.

I am splitting my time today with the member for Mirabel.

It is good to see a bill that reduces the administrative burden government places on business, facilitates digital interactions with government and simplifies regulatory processes. All our legislation should be aimed at making government smaller and simpler, in order to serve the Canadian people rather than handicap them. This is a new idea from the Liberals, one I hope they stick with.

I am encouraged to discover that this bill makes exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products without sacrificing safety. It will also make cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across governments. If we ask those in business, they will tell us that all too often the rules applied by one government department are not consistent with those applied by another department.

It was also encouraging to hear that the measures proposed in Bill S-6 are the result of a public consultation process by the Treasury Board Secretariat, as well as asking federal departments what changes are required to further streamline the regulatory process. Consultation makes sense and I would encourage the government to try it in other areas as well.

I would also encourage the Liberals to speed up the process for eliminating unnecessary government red tape. The regulatory modernization bill, the RMB, is supposed to be instituted annually to optimize regulatory processes between government departments. By doing this every year, the hope is the bureaucratic hill of red tape will not be allowed to grow into a mountain.

If we look at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's website, we will in fact see that the legislation is referred to as an annual regulatory modernization bill. Admittedly, English is not my first language, but I was led to understand that “annual” describes something that happens every year. This is the second RMB the current government has offered us. The first was only four years ago. This one was introduced last year, but obviously has not been a priority for the Liberals. Simple math says that they need to introduce four more RMBs this year to bring us up to date, but as we have seen with the budget and the government's financial plan, simple math is not their strong suit.

The 2019 RMB made changes to 12 pieces of legislation in the areas of transportation, pest control, electricity and gas inspections.

For example, the Canada Transportation Act and the Food and Drugs Act were amended to allow for innovation, permitting limited exemptions from regulatory requirements for regulatory sandboxes to test the new products that would benefit Canadians, such as tissues developed through 3D printing.

The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act was amended to support the use of new technologies, including zero-emission vehicles, light-emitting diodes, LEDs, and hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.

The Canada Transportation Act was amended to allow for digital and electronic processes and documents in addition to in-person or paper-based ones.

Changes to the Pest Control Products Act removed a redundant review requirement when another review was already considering the issue or could be modified to include the issue.

Amendments to the Food and Drugs Act provided more clarity to industry about which regulations apply to their products.

Now we have Bill S-6, which proposes 46 minor changes to 29 acts that are administered by the following 12 government organizations: Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Canada Border Services Agency; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada; Health Canada; Transport Canada; and Parks Canada.

It is good to see that the bill has a larger scope than the previous RMB and that the Liberals are discovering more places where the government needs to get out of the way. It is the least they can do.

Ask any business person and they will tell us that Canada has a red tape and productivity crisis, which is why, to me, this bill is both encouraging and disappointing.

It is encouraging because at least the Liberals are beginning to understand that there is a problem. It is disappointing because there is so much more that needs to be done; an annual bill that is, in reality, brought to the House once every three or four years is not enough to solve the problem.

The items addressed in this bill are minor at best and do little to address the onerous red tape regime that is slowing economic growth in Canada. It is the barest of the bare minimums the Liberals could make in reducing red tape and bureaucratic overreach.

It does nothing to substantively address the bureaucracy and red tape stifling economic growth. It is a Liberal bill heavy on announcement and light on delivery.

Certainly, no one would object to the changes proposed, which includes amending the Health of Animals Act to enable the minister to make an interim order that may be used when immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, to protect animal health, human health and the environment. This is just basic common sense.

It includes making changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, which would allow the agency to deliver services and allow businesses to interact with CFIA through electronic means rather than having to rely solely on paper-based transactions. This change would reduce administrative burdens for businesses and allow them greater flexibility in their interactions with the government. Paper-based transactions are usually slower than electronic ones. This is also a matter of common sense.

It includes making changes to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, to enable information sharing to help administer any federal or provincial law for permanent and temporary residents.

This bill has three main purposes: first, to make doing business easier, especially when government is involved; second, to provide flexibility and agility in government regulatory systems; and, third, to improve the integrity of the regulatory system. It is good to start but it is only a start. As the mountain of red tape grows, we need to do better. Given the track record of the Liberal government, though, maybe I am dreaming.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a bill on modernization and regulations, I feel compelled to pay tribute to a woman from my region, Jocelyne Trudel, who has to retire from her job at the Caisse Desjardins because her term is up, in line with regulations.

I want to pay tribute to her because, first of all, I was a member of the board of directors of the credit union. I had to resign when I was elected. This woman did everything very thoroughly and rigorously. She is a very generous woman. I really wanted to pay tribute to her today.

I have a question for my colleague. How can we help our administrators simplify all the paperwork for our businesses? Is there any way to do this?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a business case, basically. When one does business, one structures it properly and one puts the proper steps that are streamlined by nature. One does not put the processes that start adding red tape over and over to thicken the bureaucratic process so that business cannot be done. That is one way of doing this. It has to start in the roots and it has to be a culture of any government running this country.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague did, sort of, reference his life before entering the House of Commons. We are so fortunate to have him here. He has a very strong background in business.

As the government goes on to do the third iteration of Bill S-6, from a completely business perspective, and as we did see in The Globe and Mail today that this is a time when fewer Canadians than ever are considering starting a small business, what are some considerations for business or even small business?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know so many friends who are trying to start a business or are already in business, and the amount of red tape that they are facing is incredible.

It is so risky nowadays to think about starting a business. Those regulations start with the government. The government has to understand the common sense of doing business for businesses to be competitive, for their ability to survive in the long term, and to be productive enough so that they can continue to do business and be encouraged to do so.

The current environment of doing business in this country is not encouraging whatsoever. The government needs to act very quickly.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, considering the title of this bill is an act respecting regulatory modernization, in this time of reconciliation, a lot of legislation is quite outdated when it comes to indigenous peoples. A lot of regulations are quite outdated when it comes to indigenous peoples.

Specifically I would like to ask about the Species at Risk Act, because it does point to some species that impact my riding as I talked about to another member of Parliament, regarding barren-ground caribou, the Atlantic walrus and the Atlantic cod. I think the Species at Risk Act would make significant improvements about how these species at risk would be dealt with.

Does the member agree that, in terms of modernizing regulations, modernization must include regulations to ensure that indigenous engagement always happens when it is going to impact indigenous well-being?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the indigenous community, as well as other communities in Canada, and business communities are the victims of red tape and regulations.

The red tape and the bureaucratic processes are so thick that they are basically stopping oxygen from getting into the body. That is how I describe it.

We need to open up. We need to realize that we cannot continue doing what we are doing, because the longer this takes, the more risk we have of killing the body. I hope that is not going to be case, but we need to do better and we need to do it faster.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is 10:20 p.m. on a Wednesday night. I know that members have been looking forward to the highlight of the evening, obviously my speech. I just want to take a moment to recognize the hard-working employees of the House who are with us this evening. I want to thank the pages in particular. We often forget about them, but they are here for us and they work with us. They are our work colleagues. I saw some of them studying earlier. I even tried to help one of them solve integrals, but without success. I will have to review my math. In short, I want to thank them. I want them to know that we know that they work hard and that we think highly of them.

Let us look at the bill for what it is. In the description I have here, it talks about minor regulatory amendments to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes” and so on. Let us be honest. This is a routine bill. Once in a while, the government adjusts the regulations and updates laws and standards. We should not be debating this for six hours, which is what we are doing until midnight tonight. This is a waste of time. It does not make any sense. It is the very embodiment of parliamentary inefficiency. This bill has no principle or even spirit. These are regulatory changes. The bill should be sent directly to committee for study. It amends a whole pile of legislation. That requires expertise. I think it is a shameful waste of the House's resources and members' time to be messing around with this bill until midnight.

Still, it contains some important and interesting elements. It is true that it will make life easier for businesses and that it will simplify many things. There is a little bit of everything and a whole lot of nothing in there. There are bits about electricity, gas, the use of new technologies. We want to encourage international harmonization of standards. I know everyone is passionate about that; I can see it in their faces. People are as passionate as I am about this. We are talking about gas standards, weights and measures. We are talking about allowing more flexibility for new technologies, another one of my biggest passions. We are also going to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that there is no more confusion between the annual report and the annual declaration, so that some companies do not get delisted without their knowledge, as Jean Perron said.

There are a bunch of changes like that. Some are more substantial. The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act is being amended, for example. Essentially, when there are changes to standards and regulations, that needs to be published in the Canada Gazette. Members, parliamentarians, the public and experts in the field need to be keep abreast through the Canada Gazette. What we are doing here is repealing section 15 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, which requires these publications.

We understand the spirit of the bill because the Standards Council of Canada conducted an analysis of 19 Natural Resources Canada regulations. It became apparent that there were artefacts and old stock, that 167 of the 367 standards were removed, replaced, were no longer managed or no longer served any purpose.

What we are saying here is that we are going to facilitate the process of regulatory changes. There are essentially a few little problems because in the bill as written, there is no distinction between minor, cosmetic, functional changes and changes that might be more substantial. Regulations and standards in the oil sector are important, as members know.

There are a bunch of standards like that. I referred to them earlier when I was asking questions of some of my colleagues, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. This serves to remind us that the government has legislative tools available to adjust regulations or minor pieces of legislation that are ill-suited, contain errors or have aged poorly, and that it can do so routinely, as we are doing today.

I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Not many people know a lot about that committee, but essentially, we assess problems that may exist in regulations.

There are legal advisers who tell us, for example, that the French version does not say the same thing as the English version, or that there is an issue because the interpretation of certain regulations may be ambiguous for the courts and could cause problems. There have even been cases where there were potential charter violations. The way the regulations were written could have caused major concerns.

This week, this committee issued a notice of disallowance for an order. The problem went back 25 years. It is not uncommon for us to write to ministers one, two, three, four or five times and not get a response or a visit. Some of our correspondence is as old as Methuselah. We go back and forth with the department but do not get any answers. I would urge the government to think about that and think about the importance of correcting these errors in current laws.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé was saying that this legislation had been written five years ago and was only now being debated. There have been issues in some laws for a long time. They never get resolved, and we are being kept waiting. I am appealing to the sensitivity of the government members.

Beyond that, if we want to simplify matters, if we want to make things better for businesses, the business community and taxpayers, there are solutions that we could debate. One of them is Quebec's independence.

I know how much everybody loves filing two tax returns. We spoke about that earlier. However, do we really want two finance departments? That results in two tax rates, two finance ministers, two finance departments, two sets of public servants who draw up budgets and study estimates. That is inefficient. It might be worthwhile eliminating one of them.

We have two revenue agencies, one in Ottawa and one in Quebec City. We could fix that. In addition, if we had a single tax return, we could reassign the CRA employees working in Quebec offices to other tasks for which they are qualified, without cutting any jobs. This would result in greater productivity and savings for our businesses. That would be a good thing.

It would also be a good thing if we no longer had two environment ministers with two sets of standards. That would be pretty good. It would be a good thing if we did not have two governments bickering over who will have first crack at the tax base, who will be the first to claim a GST point or a QST point. We could eliminate all these inefficiencies.

I can guess what my colleagues are thinking. I know that the two health ministers are on their minds. The first minister manages hospitals and provides services. The second imposes conditions. The first is not sure whether they want the transfer because they are wondering whether it costs more to submit all the reports in order to meet the conditions. It is almost not worth taking the money.

That is not even to mention the fact that the tax rules for the capital allowance are inconsistent between Quebec and Ottawa, which causes confusion for businesses and takes up more resources. There is also the matter of diplomacy, international relations, and Canadian embassies and Quebec offices around the world. How inefficient is that?

It is no less inefficient than having two departments of transport or duplicating environmental assessments because Ottawa insists on having its own, thereby violating Quebec's environmental sovereignty. Quebec is also being told what to do in the area of infrastructure because Ottawa wants to impose standards.

It has even gotten to the point where the Conservatives want housing standards. There is also duplication of work and conditions imposed for post-secondary education. The federal government is even interfering in the hiring of university professors and research chairs.

I am not talking about immigration mix-ups. Why not hand that over to Quebec City? Why not do the same with housing, the French language and labour law? There is a federal labour law and a provincial labour law, two innovation departments, two natural resources departments, two departments that deal with climate change. Here, there is heritage, which is supposed to take care of the French language, yet does not care what Quebec's department of culture wants.

When things are light, life is good. Everyone likes that. Therefore, in order to make things lighter, we should leave Canada. We should leave. I am certain the other nine provinces can have a lot of fun without us.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, that is not true. I would miss Quebec if it were to leave Canada, as the member spoke about towards the end of his speech. I would even suggest that a good portion of Quebeckers, if not a majority, would feel the same way.

At the beginning of the member's intervention, he spoke about whether there is even a need for having this discussion right now, and I could not agree more. We are literally talking about something right now that everybody is in agreement with. It has primarily just been Conservatives getting up to speak to this. I am baffled as to why that is when everybody is in agreement, notwithstanding the fact that I know people stand up and use the excuse of making sure they represent their constituents by talking about it.

Can the member try to shed some light on why we are not moving along? All it takes is for everybody to stop talking; then, by default, we would just go to a vote. Could he give his thoughts on why we are not able to do that?