Debates of May 3rd, 2023

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech. He really covered a lot of the aspects of the bill. He touched on many areas there.

I just want him to go back to the portion where he was talking about trademarks. I know the Bloc talk a lot about trying to deal with the issue of planned obsolescence. In the regulations that will be changed around trademarks, does the member think there will be anything to help out in that area as well?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passion for trademark protection and his interest in creating increasingly modern and robust legislation.

I would remind him that the objective is to ensure that our local industries are as successful as possible. That requires a legal mechanism that will protect our economy. It is not the rest of the world's economy that we need to protect; it is our own, particularly in rural areas.

I commend my colleague for his interest in this issue. We should be able to protect our trademarks, our integrity and our intellectual properly effectively. Intellectual property theft is too easy right now. If China is doing as well as it is, it may be because we wanted to manufacture all of our stuff there and we gave away all our patents at the same time. Perhaps it is too late to do anything about that, but it is not too late to do a better job of protecting our businesses' interests, particularly in the age of digitalization.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my neighbour from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his recognition of the huge contribution of the Ukrainian community in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I know well the history of the Ukrainian church in Val-d’Or, in Rouyn. It is the same story in Kirkland Lake with the Ukrainian church that just closed and, of course, the Orthodox and Ukrainian church in Timmins. This is the story of our families who moved back and forth along that line from Val-d’Or to Timmins in the mines. We also know the history of the treatment of the Ukrainians, the mistreatments and incarcerations. My friend, Richard Desjardins, has talked about how Noranda Mines used to bring in the Ukrainians because they would threaten to deport them if they ever tried to strike.

Given the incredible contribution of the Ukrainian community in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the situation with the war, I would like to ask my hon. colleague how he feels the Ukrainian community has added to the vitality and development of our region.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, my neighbour, for allowing me to speak to this issue.

Barely a century ago, Rouyn‑Noranda was the second most cosmopolitan city in Canada. Before Toronto and Vancouver there was Rouyn‑Noranda. This was mostly due to the arrival of people from all over the world. At the time, regulations favoured the massive arrival of immigrants who came to work on developing our economy. The situation at the time was very different than it is today.

This paved the way for the emergence of a very engaged community, the Ukrainian community. I did not have the chance to inform my colleague of this, but I recently participated in the Timmins tournament with my hockey team, the Pro‑Gaz. We won, by the way. I did notice the presence of this Ukrainian church. Father Chayka was probably also in Timmins-James Bay. Sadly, he died in the early days of the invasion of Ukraine. He would have been very helpful in welcoming the newcomers. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, we have welcomed more than 60 of them, including five at my place. I would like to say hello to them.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the discussion we just heard was very moving, and I congratulate both my colleagues.

My question is about the delays. Bill S-6 was announced in 2018, and, in 2023, it has only reached second reading stage.

We know that there was a pandemic and that this government takes its time, but what does my hon. colleague think about that? Are such long delays acceptable?

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

Madam Speaker, what is happening right now is quite shocking.

I would like to tell my colleague about the report prepared by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which I mentioned earlier. The report shows the economic impact of immigration delays on small and medium-sized businesses.

Madam Speaker, in my riding and yours, we are losing many workers because the agreements are making immigration wait times much longer.

We have to ask ourselves some serious questions, because this ultimately has repercussions on the economic development of every municipality. Land use, a fundamental value, is affected by the delays, which are mainly caused by the federal government. We have to think of our SMEs and support some regulatory relief.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill S-6. I want to thank the previous speaker for highlighting many of the areas that are contemplated in this bill. I would argue that it was one of the better speeches made today.

I also want to speak to what the bill does. Of course, as was just mentioned, it was originally contemplated in the minister's mandate letter as far back as 2015 that the economic viability of our regulatory processes be looked at to ensure increased innovation and competitiveness. This version of Bill S-6 removes the existing negative barriers to imperative regulation processes, as outdated provisions can lead to significant errors and impact essential work within government departments.

This is one of the greatest tests of our time. Between the tabling of the previous iteration of this bill and the tabling of this version there was a significant event. COVID–19 impacted our country in ways we never would have expected. We practically went online overnight. In a short period of time, we went from living our regular everyday lives to being almost alone in our homes and relying on digital technology. Federal civil services were also impacted by the requirement of regulations and the burden of ensuring we were able to address those issues via companies and regulators throughout COVID. Therefore, it is a very timely bill in the sense that we can finally address some long-awaited areas. If the government had done a better job, some of these regulations might have already been passed before we experienced COVID–19, this tragic, ongoing, international disease.

I want to speak to the broadness of the bill. It modifies 29 acts through 46 amendments and applies to 12 departments and agencies. Imagine how large and significant that will be. We have seen, through Senate committee hearings, for example, that the amendments are low risk and deal largely with the requirement of modernizing existing processes, for example, the requirement for physical postings versus online postings, so we can see that the nature of these amendments is such that they will make the operations of government more consistent and more appropriate for the processes and regulations to be used.

It is important as well to ensure that, regarding the regulations to be reviewed at committee, other folks, like agriculture, for example, which is one of the departments most affected by this bill, be at the table to speak directly to the issues, particularly those amendments with respect to agriculture. I know the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is doing good work with many agriculture representatives across the country and is consulting on this as we speak.

New Democrats will stand in support of the passage of this bill at second reading in order to get it to committee. At committee, I would invite all our colleagues to work diligently to ensure that the vastness and scope of the bill is truly reviewed at committee. If it requires amendments, I hope the government will be willing to table the amendments in earnest and adopt them.

One of the greatest concerns I have with the bill, which has also been referenced by other members of this chamber, is with respect to the vast consultations. When we look at some of the consultation documents that were tabled by the government and reviewed at the Senate hearings, for example, it is clear that the government was consulting businesses, industry and stakeholders, but the one important stakeholder that was absent was labour unions. We know that good, quality work in Canada is one of the most important skills we have. We know that human resources and good skilled labour is truly our best resource in this country, so why would we not invite labour unions to the table when talking about some of the most significant changes these folks will deal with in their industry? Although they are minor in their area and impact, it is regular everyday people who will have to process these regulations, so why not make it easier for all those who process those regulations to do that work, including the labour unions? I believe labour and management can do great things in this country if they work together. At committee we are going to ensure that we invite many labour representatives to speak directly to the impacts of this legislation on labour.

I want to speak about the benefits of improving our regulatory systems on an annual basis, another important piece to this legislation. It speaks about the important work that is required when provisions go out of date. We are not immune to modernity in this place, nor are our laws, meaning that we need to invest in time and processes. Bill S-6 contemplates a process to modernize these things.

Regulations, of course, are important pieces of how the government needs to operate. They are the biggest role of the government. They ensure that consumers are most and best protected, regular everyday folks, folks who need these kinds of protections. New Democrats have always cautioned against outright removal of regulations that would seek to harm consumers for the benefit of big corporations. Although this bill does not contemplate any of these vast changes, the annual process, as a matter of fact, could.

At committee stage, I hope we can find ways to close up and tighten the language of this bill to ensure, when we are speaking about annual regulation changes, that process is defined in area, scope and impact, and we make sure the right stakeholders are at the table. I do agree that the government did a good job in terms of its consultations with businesses, industry and stakeholders, but the important piece of ensuring that labour is there is most critical.

We also see mention of “help cut red tape”. That is a famous Conservative line, that they are going to cut the red tape. We see the Liberals are joining this process of calling for the cutting red tape. As a matter of fact, we heard a speech from a Conservative earlier, who did not mention anything about Bill S-6. I hope the vast debates that they are going be hosting tonight and the vast number of speeches that they have asked for today speak directly to this aspect, speak directly to the fact that we are going to see a reduction of regulations through this bill. I would imagine the Conservatives are going to be voting in favour in this, but have yet to hear their position.

When we talk about how existing regulations in this bill are going to work, for example, the ones related to agriculture, we need to be careful when we talk about fairness in competition and innovation that we protect Canadian producers. I am a bit nervous with some of the language presented in the agriculture amendments that look at other jurisdictions. It was mentioned by a Liberal member earlier today that some of these regulations could impact the competitiveness of Canadian farmers and producers by looking at other jurisdictions and equalizing, for example, the requirements they have. I think of dairy products, for example. Canada has some of the best laws protecting our dairy industry, but if we were to reduce those regulations in favour of other jurisdictions' regulations and “scientific processes reviews”, they could in fact harm producers. That is why New Democrats are consulting at this time with the agriculture sector and we hope to invite their amendments to this bill at committee.

As well, we know that during the hard time during COVID-19 when so many Canadians had to all of a sudden deal with the reality of going online, we found that many Canadians were unequipped to do that. We found that many Canadians did not have some of the services that the country is moving forward with, and that is an important piece to this. As much as we are in favour of ensuring that we are going to be operating in the 21st century by eliminating fax machines, for example, and ensuring that people can apply online, we have to remember those in northern, rural and remote communities.

There has to be a way to ensure that those who are not yet connected, those who lack ability and connectivity, have a chance to access these services, too. That means ensuring that rural and remote communities continue to access their services the way they know how. Should there be a barrier, like being unable to apply for a service online because of a lack of technology, Internet or availability, the government needs to take special consideration of those realities.

We also want to ensure that environmental groups are consulted on the impacts of much of this work. We know that environmental groups are some of the most passionate, hard-working and decent people who are looking at the very environment we live in, the conditions we live in.

It is important that they are invited to the table because the ministry of environment has a proposed amendment. Why not invite more people into the room? Come committee stage, we hope that environmental groups will also be invited to have their testimony heard in relation to the bill.

The external advisory committee on regulatory competitiveness, made up of business, academic and consumer stakeholders, has also recommended that there be continued efforts to reduce the administrative burden on regulations and to ensure that they are future-proof, which means keeping pace with changing technologies and business realities. We agree with this. New Democrats believe that the government must continue to keep pace with modernity, such as Canadians are. However, it is important that the government acts on Canadians' best interests and, in particular, act in the interest of protecting consumers.

For example, we live in an age when many members of the House have probably heard of ChatGPT, which is artificial intelligence, or AI, so part of the regulations that contemplate an annual renewal of regulations should take special consideration of AI technology. My colleague, the member for Windsor West, has spoken to this and has done good work to ensure that the science and technology is well regulated and that the processes are there to protect regular Canadians. We need to ensure that annual regulation reviews take special consideration of that level of changing technology.

AI will dramatically change the landscape on how regular, everyday people interact with our government, with one another and online. We need to ensure that our regulatory systems, in particular, the continued annual regulatory systems, take into special consideration these facts. We may not even know what kind of future innovation is out there yet.

To contemplate a process that looks at the future renewal of regulations means that we have to take special consideration with a special eye on science and technology. We need to ensure that, as it exponentially grows, the regulations are put in place to better protect them. I am saying that we should not only see regulation review and the modernity of regulation review as a process to remove regulations, but we should also consider what regulations could be put in place that are common sense and good for Canadians. For example, common sense in access, equitability and applicability.

We have the power in this place to ensure that the processes are in place so that everyday, regular Canadians, or the companies that our country is proud to host, can interact in a fair system in a way that does not take advantage of their time and where they can actually see their products and innovative work produced and put onto the market without hindrance. I agree with that principle, and that is the nature of the bill before us.

However, by no means should we take my airing this caution as a way to diminish the innovation that is happening, but we need to have a balance. Regulation and the processes that government creates to ensure that these regulations are put in place are there to protect Canadians from ulterior motives that could otherwise take from them more than we had ever anticipated. This is because of the unique relationship between science and technology, regulation and the future. When the committee asks for something to be future-proof, we have to contemplate what that really means. When the committee asks how we can create a future-proof system to deal with regulations that are cumbersome, we need to consider the balance of facts and the risk that could be present to Canadians.

We know, for example, that banks and big corporations often look at the letter of the law to find ways to get around it. Why would a company do something like? Well, oftentimes we find that these companies are seeking to get around those laws to get around the protections that we have put in place for consumers so they can maximize their own interests. If it is our job in this place to ensure that the interests of Canadians, regular folks and consumers, are heard, then it is in the interest of all members in this chamber to put in place good regulations. Those regulations should be for the betterment of understanding, whether it is in agriculture, technology and science, and we truly future-proof that process by taking an earnest consideration of the power of regulations.

Therefore, a red tape reduction act like this, the one being contemplated here, does have some areas that we have to hear about in committee. It does not mean that we are opposed to the vast number of amendments in here. It means that we have to do more work.

New Democrats stand ready and firm to work with all members of the House to ensure that we get to a place where we strike the balance I spoke about between what is future-proof and what is in the public good of Canadians. How do we strike a balance between these two in a way that encourages innovation and science, but keeps the protection of Canadians at heart? That is the role of the government. That is the role of bills such as Bill S-6.

We need to find ways to ensure that, while we future-proof this process, we take those lessons learned to ensure that we continually build on the good work of regulation review and that it does not become a process for governments, whether it is this one or the next one, to abuse. We do not want to see a vast abuse of the power found within Bill S-6 to have an annual review of regulations to toss out regulations a government may not like. That would hurt, for example, regular everyday people. That would hurt innovation in our country. These are two important aspects of how our country should be governed, by balancing those two interests.

From the testimony from the committee related to Bill S-6, we heard that it proposes 46 amendments to 29 acts under 12 departments and agencies. This may seem like a huge and cumbersome amount, but I want to remind members of the chamber that these are minor and, according to the independent committee, low risk. However, it is our job to ensure that, during a line-by-line review in committee, those interests of business, of consumers, and of labour and environmental groups are heard. It is important to do that because we can ensure the future-proofing process. That is the part I am most concerned about. How can we have an annual review with a good and well-established scope, so we cannot go so far outside those boundaries, so who knows how many governments in the future would be utilizing this process.

In addition to regulations that are being amended within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we also see some amendments within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Let us consider the problems there.

One of the greatest problems in Canada right now is the lack of an ability to ensure that travel documents are in the hands of those who need them most. Every single MP in this chamber, I know for a fact, has had to deal with immigration in their office. When they deal with that immigration work, they find out that the processes are delayed. Every MP, whether Liberal, Bloc, New Democrat or Conservative, finds out that the processes are not working. Even the members across the way on the Liberal bench know it is broken.

Therefore, I was really pleased to see that there is an amendment within Bill S-6 to make that easier. It is a process that looks at ensuring that people can apply some of these processes online, in particular allowing for applications within existing visa applications to be used and duplicated in the PR system of applications. That is a common sense amendment. Why were we doing it differently before? These are the kinds of problems that contribute to these backlogs.

It is important that we pass a bill such as this to ensure an amendment like this works, and so that IRCC has more and better tools to process the information it already has, rather than asking regular folks to do the same application twice. Why would we make them do that?

It is important that these regulations are passed, that we ensure consultation during the committee phase and, finally, that we ensure the future annual amendments and review of regulations process is one that takes into consideration the unique factors of balancing the need to protect regular Canadians and consumers with the need of ensuring that businesses can continue to innovate and make our country great.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed my colleague was talking about future-proofing Canada. The member spoke a bit about agriculture, and we see a lot of regulations and burdens on our farmers in Canada. Whether it is added burdens at the PMRA, whether it is the clean fuel standards or adding carbon tax to farmers, the costs keep going up, and regulations and red tape keep happening. It is going to put our farmers out of business, especially those in fresh food production.

I am worried about the future of our fruit and vegetable farmers in Canada. Nobody wants to get in the business anymore because of the burdens and regulations they are facing every day. I wonder if the member would like to comment on what he would like to see happen to get rid of some of these regulations so we can protect our future food production in this country, and protect our fruit and vegetable farmers in Canada.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her advocacy and her good work in relation to protecting our farmers.

As a rancher myself, we have had to deal with these kinds of issues, particularly when mad cow disease was an outbreak in Canada. Cattle ranchers, like my family and I, had to deal with those regulations. It was a really difficult time for producers, particularly cattle producers. We saw some of the lowest prices per pound of beef across the country. It was almost in the negative. It was a terrible time, but we understood why those regulations existed.

As a matter of fact, we had to ensure that regulations were improved after that crisis so we could become more competitive. There needs to be a balance between the public safety of Canadians and competitiveness.

I know, as someone who has had to go through some of these regulations with cattle, the regulations are difficult and hard, but we also have to remember that they are good for consumers. It makes our businesses stronger when we can demonstrate we are the best in the business and we are going to do the best for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing that stood out from my colleague's speech was the part specifically related to Bill C-27 and the importance of regulating artificial intelligence.

He mentioned the great work done by the member for Windsor West. Perhaps that member's most concrete contribution to this issue so far was to divide the debate, until the NDP eventually asked for two votes on the same issue, which meant that we arrived 15 minutes late in committee. I will spare my colleagues all the details.

Nevertheless, considering that this bill should have been passed in 2018-19, we get the sense that some members have tried to delay and stall. Could the NDP not be part of the solution to speed things up with the government, especially when it comes to paperwork done by our administrators and agricultural producers?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe it the responsibility of all members in the House to ensure that the benefits for Canadians and Québécois are there.

It is important that we work together on all aspects that advance the interests of Canadians. Partisanship is often one of those things we may have to make a sacrifice for. We have to define, in our own minds, what is worth our time and what is worth our position.

On the issue of AI, I hope that all members of the House will stand to defend the interests of Canadians. It is no secret that we are on the frontier of AI, and it is a kind of frontier that will change our lives forever. We are living in a whole other world right now, and it is about to change. AI will transform the world. It will transform Canada. It will transform our economy.

We need all members of the House to take it seriously. We need to expedite a framework to ensure that AI is regulated in this country for the protection of Canadians and Québécois.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the theme of regulations and agriculture. I grew up on an apple orchard. My father sprayed those apples with DDT. We had a big bag of DDT under the sink that my brother and I used to play with. Then we found out that DDT was destroying the environment. It was driving bird populations to extinction.

We then brought in regulations and those regulations are there, not to be a barrier or a gatekeeper for farmers, but to protect all of us in this country from the adverse effects of these chemicals. We had to shift to different pesticides, and that process continues. These regulations are there for a reason. They are not there just because someone thinks it is an idea that would harm farmers. They are there to protect the public and the environment. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the world continues to change, and as Canada continues to define our greater role in the world, not only as an innovator of products with innovation across many industries, but also as a producer of good food and high-quality products, we need to ensure that we remain a country that has the best products, the best orchards, the best beef and the best producers in the world.

The way to do that is to not just let anyone do anything they want, such as, for example, spraying chemicals that harm the environment or getting around regulations to get beef to market that has not been properly inspected. It is important. These regulations protect the quality of our Canadian producers.

When people say there are gatekeepers in the way, they damage the reputation of producers. They damage the reputation of farmers when things go wrong. It is not a matter of when things go wrong, it is a matter of if they go wrong. Why not bring in regulations that prevent the likelihood of that and keep our products on top?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty and burdens that are put onto our producers, and there is one issue that has come up multiple times from constituents of mine. It is the issue of trying to get a federally regulated vet to go down to the border to do something as simple as scan an ear tag so a rancher can bring his bull back across the border.

It seems at times we have unnecessary regulations in place, especially when we have a big shortage of federally regulated vets in this country. There are other vets who are also licensed and regulated to a very high standard who could probably do the work just as well as the vet who goes down to the border to do it, but there seems to be unnecessary regulations that get in the way. However, we do not see the government moving to address some of those kinds of regulations.

I am wondering if the member has any comments on that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I grew up not too far from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, and I know how strong the economy is for producers there. In fact, we have traded many bulls and different kinds of animals with many of the producers there.

The member is right when he talks about the issue of the labour shortages we are seeing at border crossings when it comes to the enforcement of regulations. As a matter of fact, I think the member hit the nail on the head, in the fact that we need to see more veterinarians and more folks who actually have the ability to regulate the implementation and enforcement of regulations.

I agree that if we have regulations and lack the enforcement, why do we have regulations? I disagree, however, that we should just get rid of the regulations. I think the actual solution is to ensure we keep the regulation and, as a matter of fact, we should modernize that regulation and ensure we actually have the labour to enforce it. That is one of the pieces that is missing. Maybe AI could play a part in this. That is one of the areas where we have to make certain that we actually put in the AI framework.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know that this is a difficult bill, because it covers so many regulations in so many different acts. I am sure the member has also been exposed to many issues and barriers that are caused by regulations, being an indigenous person himself. I wonder if he can speak to why he has made the determination that he has and whether he does or does not support Bill S-6, and speak to what it means for indigenous peoples.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Nunavut is one of the strongest advocates for indigenous rights in this place, and without her we would be absent a kind of justice and a kind of dignity for indigenous people.

Now I will speak directly on the question. Yes, as a matter of fact, indigenous people need to be at the table, and although New Democrats are recommending a yes vote on this, we are sincere about our request to invite members of Parliament across party lines to the committee stage to invite groups that have not been better heard. We know that business and industry have been heard through an independent process already, but the groups that are missing from that consultation are labour, environmental and indigenous groups. We need to see these three important and incredible groups come to the table at the committee stage and have the willing ear of the government to actually make those amendments credible and enforceable.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this evening.

I am going to use a lot of my time to talk about something that is really important in my riding, so much so that it is even included in the name of my riding, which, of course, is Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

In southern Saskatchewan, we are blessed to have one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the entire world, and that is Grasslands National Park. If people are wondering how it all relates to a government bill on federal regulations, I can assure them that it does.

In part 3, clause 85 of Bill S-6, it deals specifically with the issue of species at risk. That is where the bill makes reference to an organization named COSEWIC, which the government has identified as the only organization to be used for determining whether a species belongs on a list and to determine what level of concern there should be. This is the type of issue facing Grasslands National Park. For the moment I will try my best to fill everyone in on the background story that is involved in this.

To say the relationship with local stakeholders and producers has been rocky at best would be an understatement. During the park's early days, in classic big government fashion, the government booted the local ranchers out of the park and refused to let them graze the grasslands, stating that they were doing so to protect species at risk but also to protect the native prairie grass.

However, over time, the number of species in the park dwindled and declined, and the quality of the grass deteriorated. Researchers began to notice that all of the species at risk had relocated themselves out of the park to the other side of the fence and into the private ranchers' pastures. Why would that happen? Well, without a true keystone species to graze the grass, many of the smaller species became easy targets for their predators to eat.

Of course, it used to be the case that buffalo were the keystone species for that area. When that changed, it was possible, in their absence, for cattle to replace them as the main grazers and managers of the land in the park. That is what happened until the government decided to put a stop to it.

Once all of the bureaucratic interference was removed and the ranchers were allowed to graze in the park once again, the grasslands began to flourish and the vibrant species all returned to the park along with the cattle. It showed that there is a very delicate balance to be maintained between nature and human activity. They can work together and they can benefit each other.

There was a good balance in the grasslands until some people from the government decided they knew better and needed to fix something that was not broken. It sounds very familiar to many issues that we face today. Let us fast-forward to present day and see what is happening in the park.

As I mentioned earlier, the government has appointed a group named COSEWIC, which stands for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, through the Species at Risk Act, as the official designator of species at risk by making recommendations to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

At the time, there seems to be no accountability mechanisms for the actions of COSEWIC, and Bill S-6 is not changing that. To add to this, the adversarial role the government has taken toward the local stewards of the land has become a growing disaster once again in Grasslands National Park.

The difference is that the ranchers have a built-in incentive for taking the absolute best care not only of the grasslands, but also the species that exist within and around the fences of their pastures.

COSEWIC has identified the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. It is not yet listed as a schedule 3 species at risk but the fact that it is even on such a list makes one wonder why that is.

The black-tailed prairie dog is a species that thrives not only in Saskatchewan but all the way down through the United States to the Mexican border and probably even further into Mexico itself. A quick Google search would actually verify that all the way through the United States there is a very vibrant population of this prairie dog.

Despite the readily available information, does COSEWIC take that into consideration? Does the minister even bother to check into it himself?

Again, we have the issue of human interference with nature by COSEWIC and other scientists.

For example, anyone who has ever lived in Saskatchewan knows that when there is a drought or dryer conditions, gophers and these prairie dogs thrive and can rapidly overtake an area. I have seen entire quarter sections of crop and hay land completely disappear within two years or even less. However, this is what COSEWIC's website states:

The Black-tailed Prairie Dog is a burrowing and colony-forming member of the squirrel family and is confined to only 12 square kilometres of grassland habitat in southern Saskatchewan. Initially assessed as Special Concern by COSEWIC in 2000, increasing threats posed by droughts and a bacterial disease could rapidly eradicate this species.

This is where local knowledge is vitally important, yet COSEWIC refuses to utilize it. The prairie dog is not confined to 13 kilometres. Ask any rancher around the park. The species has spread and is continuing to spread in the regions the researchers apparently have missed.

Those involved on the agricultural side are more aware of what is going on. This is something one has to get right if one wants to properly manage the local wildlife.

Remember what I said earlier about the effects of grazing on species on the park. I will now bring up another more recent example. The prairie dog and the sage grouse are intertwined with each other. The prairie dog eats the roots of sagebrush as they are tunnelling in the ground, but the sage grouse needs the same plant for shelter and to protect itself from other species that would be looking to eat it. If the prairie dogs overtake the park, it is going to eliminate their shelter and chase the sage grouse out of the park.

The problem can turn out to be different depending on whether there are too few prairie dogs or we are at risk of having too many. How does nature control populations of mammals in the animal kingdom? There are two main ways. There are others, but the two that are most important are predators and diseases.

However, COSEWIC is interfering in nature's natural course, everything from dusting for fleas to hand feeding prairie dogs, which is causing them to not gather food and get themselves ready for winter as they become reliant on humans to feed them. With all this, it seems like history may be repeating itself with Grasslands National Park. If we do not act with accurate information and if we do not try to maintain the right balance, this organization will mess with and continue to ruin a delicate ecosystem.

The most frustrating part is we have seen this kind of thing happen before. I heard many people share their concerns about it for a very long time. The government's own website admits local stakeholders have a difference of opinion, but the department and its activists do not care.

The people of southern Saskatchewan demand accountability and they demand respect from the government. These are multi-generational ranchers who have seen to the sustainable development of grasslands for over a century, and this rogue organization with no government oversight is causing problems. There is no need to get in the way of ranchers' way of life, especially when doing so will put more species at risk onto the list.

The park is important both environmentally and economically, and those interests go together. If it is not maintained well enough due to errors made by the government, the local municipalities will also suffer from the lost revenue. We are dealing with an imbalanced approach to the environment that is showing signs of failure.

In many ways it is similar to the problems we are seeing with developing our natural resources, which is also mentioned in Bill S-6. It is nice for a change to have a government bill that wants to reduce regulatory burdens instead of expand them, but the changes are too small compared to what is really needed.

When one thinks about the bigger picture, we are not yet seeing a full-scale reduction of over-regulation when it comes to our energy or agricultural producers. Right now, there are still farmers who are afraid that at any moment the government will restrict their use of fertilizer even though they are doing the best they can to use less of it while growing more food to feed the world. At the same time, if the government is going to do that, it is also pushing ahead with a fuel standard that creates more demand for the same crops required for food and for biofuels. The last thing those farmers will need is higher demand while being able to grow less of their product because of government regulations.

There are also some incoming electricity regulations which the Premier of Saskatchewan is deeply concerned about. These new regulations keep coming along while the Liberals want to pretend they care about efficiency with Bill S-6.

I will also say time and time again the Liberal government's signature policy of impact assessment has been stopping resource development across the board. This has definitely been the case for pipelines in the oil and gas sector, but it is a lot more than that too.

In my work on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources or in meeting with energy stakeholders, I keep hearing about different projects left in jeopardy because the impact assessment is unnecessarily burdensome. We are talking about not getting ahead with critical minerals, which the Liberals always try to boast about. For example, we are not on track to source enough lithium for EV batteries in terms of our trade agreements. They have been ignoring this problem for years.

Impact assessment prevents mining projects from getting started because they will take too long. It can create problems with forestry. More recently, there has been talk of potential problems coming up for nuclear energy as well. This is about investment coming into our country and over-regulation in a lot of these areas, which a bill like this should be addressing but is not.

Our Canadian prosperity was built on natural resources. That will remain true for the future. At the moment, the Liberal government's policies are getting in everyone's way. It is managing to destroy our successful industries while also getting in the way of any future industries it says we need to support.

Sadly, Bill S-6 is yet another missed opportunity on the part of the Liberal government. It does not go far enough with removing gatekeepers or improving the lives of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech made me reflect on the importance of decentralization and local governments. One of the notable examples he gave involving the prairie dog is a result of super-centralization. Making decisions that apply from coast to coast to coast has serious repercussions in areas that are really crucial to the development of our towns and our lands.

My question is pretty straightforward. Should we rely more on our local governments to put in place regulations, since that is the purpose of this bill? These are often minor regulations, but they can make a difference in the development of our farmlands and our towns.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, in a lot of ways, the hon. member is right. The closer a level of government is to the people, the more effective and more pointed its regulations are going to be. We have seen the example with the regulation of the park. We have the local rural municipality, which knows this. These are people who have been ranching and farming in the area for multiple generations, for over a century. They have been good stewards of the land for a very long period of time. They know what the important species are. They know how to properly take care of the land.

There are other areas, like natural resources, for example. I think the member opposite would agree that natural resources are the sole jurisdiction of the provinces. However, the federal government likes to wade into it all the time. We do not see the government addressing those concerns by removing regulations in this bill.

I think we need to focus a bit more on jurisdiction, respecting jurisdiction where jurisdiction needs to be respected.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for including provisions in this bill regarding species at risk, because this act actually has a lot of detrimental impact in my region. There are two specific species, one of which is the barren-ground caribou. On the marine side, it is the Atlantic walrus. Those populations are known to be quite dramatic. It is hard to determine if they are at the time a species at risk.

I see that in this bill, Bill S-6, there are regulations talking about the importance of creating a recovery strategy, but I wonder if the member would agree that whatever plans are being created about species at risk, indigenous peoples must be at the forefront of the decision-making.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the point that the hon. member raised is actually a very important one. If we are going to implement recovery strategies, local knowledge is of utmost importance, and there is no more important local knowledge than that of the indigenous people, whether it is up in Nunavut, or in the northern part of the Prairies, or even in the southern part of the Prairies. They have been on the land for centuries, for a very long period of time. Again, getting back to that local knowledge, people who have been there and have a long history of being there have seen how species change, how species can adapt, how the land has transformed and changed over the years, and what the delicate balance is there.

I think it is extremely important that we rely on local knowledge. The member has that part of it right, absolutely.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it really feels like I just read an issue of National Geographic.

As Bill S-6 goes into its third rendition, I would like to ask my colleague if he would prefer more of a stakeholder consultation approach or a hands-off government approach, and what he thinks the citizens and stakeholders in his riding would prefer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question because, too often, big government comes in and ruins it. It consults with the wrong stakeholders. When consultations were being done, the government website said that there was a lot of emphasis put on online participants. We do not even know where those online participants were from. They could have been from Europe, for all we know. Would they have the best interests at heart for the land, for the ranchers, for the producers, but also for the species at risk there in the park? Absolutely not.

The local people know what the balance is there. In this particular instance and many other instances, a hands-off approach by the government would be preferred. It would be way more beneficial, both to the species and to the producers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-6. I think we are all pleased to speak to a bill that seeks to cut red tape, reduce delays and increase efficiency.

When it comes to increased flexibility and efficiency, the answer is yes. We are there to support that. That is what we want to do. When it comes to reducing delays, the answer is yes. The member for Joliette said earlier that this bill was introduced in 2018 and that we are debating it in 2023. Someone asked why that was. I am tempted to tell them that this bill is moving through the House at a speed that is directly proportional to the speed at which this government takes action. We spend our time waiting for things to happen.

I want to make a little aside about what is going on in the news. For months now, information has been coming out in dribs and drabs about potential foreign interference in our democratic process, and nothing is being done. The much-talked-about public inquiry will probably happen, but likely not before next year, because that is how slowly things move in the House. Fortunately, we are here. The opposition is here to pressure this government into taking action. We will do that today for that reason. Yes, we are here to support efficiency, but we will not support a lack of transparency.

What we like is transparency. Some parts of Bill S‑6 have me concerned a bit. Others are obvious. There are, for example, changes to Innovation, Science and Economic Development to make it easier to withdraw a mediation application if a settlement is reached. I hope this will happen, as it seems obvious and is only normal. The best part is that it would clear the court backlogs. There is also the matter of having meters read through other means instead of getting a person to read them. I hope this will happen. There are other things, such as allowing interim authorizations under trade conditions. Earlier my colleagues were talking about trademarks and having greater efficiency and fluidity. I am okay with that. The details of this bill still need to be studied and that is where the committee comes in. There is less confusion for business corporations, co-operatives and not-for-profit organizations when it comes to the distinction between annual reports and annual statements. As we know, our good government asks people for so much paperwork that they get all mixed up.

There is also the immigration issue. I would like to tell a story about someone from my riding. It is the story of a foreign worker who applied to renew her work permit. She had applied for permanent residency and was waiting. This Spanish-speaking woman was buried under paperwork, sometimes in English and other times in French, and she became very confused. In the meantime, she received her Quebec selection certificate, and, naively, she did not apply to renew her work permit. Let us put ourselves in her shoes. It is starting to become the norm to receive all kinds of paperwork, to have to deal with different levels of government, and to have different deadlines at each level. Sometimes, the second government is so slow that the first application has to be resubmitted. This will again cost money, because it is the fault of the second government. Of course that does not matter to the second government. The person must pay. Everyone knows that the second government I am referring to is obviously the federal government. The Bloc will have only one government, and it will be the right one.

I was saying that because she had received her Quebec selection certificate, she did not apply to renew her work permit. A few days later, when she went to see her employer to celebrate, her employer realized that it was the wrong document and told her that she had to apply to renew her work permit. Unfortunately, the deadline for the renewal application was the day before. We are not talking six months prior. I do not want to get angry here, but it is hard not to. These people we are talking about, here in this disconnected Parliament, we met them in person and we saw them crying, sitting at our desk. It was not six months later, it was the next day, yet we could not get the renewal application accepted. If someone applies for a renewal while their permit is active, they can continue to work until they get the new one. It does not matter because the application has been submitted.

However, if an individual applies after the deadline, too bad. They have to wait three months to get a new work permit. The person I am talking about had to live on charity for several weeks, in a G7 country.

I will end my digression by saying that it is good to reduce wait times.

My time is running out, and I still have lots I want to talk about. I have to talk about agriculture, but before I do, I must express my doubts about the part that deals with oil and gas. I am not sure why. Perhaps it is because of Bay du Nord, or because of the new offshore oil and gas exploration licenses. When I see the words “natural resources” and “oil” together, and that the requirement to publish information is being lifted, I have some serious doubts. There will be a lot of work to do. Is it because they want to sneak things past us?

I will stop talking about oil now. I could talk about it for another 10 minutes, but I only have three and a half minutes left.

With regard to the agricultural industry, when I hear that the government wants to facilitate the recognition of international standards, there are a few things that come to mind. I have had some traumatic experiences with the federal government since I became an MP three and a half years ago. One of them was the review of the thresholds for glyphosate, fungicide and herbicide residues, which the government tried to quietly sneak past us during the construction holiday one summer when the weather was hot and sunny. The Liberals thought that it would go unnoticed. I remember that we were dumbfounded. It was done without any kind of announcement or anything. What was even more shocking was that our farmers told us that they did not know where that measure came from, that they had never asked for it and that they were respecting the thresholds. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency told us that it was to align with international standards.

I am pleased to see that my colleague from Beauce is here because he will be happy that I am talking about this. When I hear that we are going to align with international standards and increase the thresholds for pesticide and fungicide residue, the message that I am getting is that we are going to bring in poor quality products from other countries, as is too often the case.

There is talk of reciprocity of standards. I am all for streamlining and adopting international standards to make trade easier, but I do not want us to lower these standards. I do not want us to fail to meet the expectations of our constituents, our consumers. People are expecting us to ensure quality. Our producers are proud, strong and efficient. They deliver quality. I do not want to undermine that because all of sudden someone decides to accept international standards. Carrots from Mexico may contain more pesticides than carrots that grow in Quebec. There is nonsense that does not appear in the official speeches, but exists on the ground daily. This is important.

Aligning our standards can be useful, but we have to do so effectively and quickly, by relying on science and using the precautionary principle. I do not often hear anyone talk about the precautionary principle.

Today, the Minister of Agriculture announced assurances that seeds created with gene editing would be monitored. That is good. We are pleased, but the monitoring will be done by the private sector with subsequent supervision by the state. I am less keen on that. I think that is the government's responsibility. I think we are capable of doing this effectively.

We are in a situation where the state is not moving quickly enough, and we are going to let the public sector take action. I do not think that is the right thing to do. Last year, we had a problem with the approval of linuron, a product used when growing carrots. There was a small change in the formulation, and since Canada's study and review processes are so slow, the product was not approved. Our producers contacted us in a panic, told us they would not be able to grow their crop and that Quebeckers would be eating carrots from the United States, which uses the same product. Sometimes, we have to use common sense with regulations.

I could probably keep talking about this for two or three hours, but I will stop now as my time has expired.