Greg Fergus

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Ontario, who was born in British Columbia, on the quality of his French. I know that he is of Italian origin and he also speaks English, but it warms my heart to hear him speak French.

Often, when people talk about the Century Initiative, they say that it is a federal government initiative. We know that is a false argument because it is just one initiative out of the 3,000 stakeholders that chose to submit ideas to the federal government. The government does not have any intention of increasing the Canadian population to 100 million people.

Can my colleague make a few comments on this? How can we encourage francophone immigration in Canada and certainly in Quebec?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 10th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, on April 14, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs received a response from the national security and intelligence adviser that details formal briefings to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office, ministers and cabinet on the subject of foreign interference in elections.

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Simcoe North, a person whom I have come to know. He is an hon. member, certainly, but I found his speech lacking because of the many examples he offered. If he were concerned about getting to the nub of the issue, he would look towards the testimony that we have had in committee when we had allegations floating around. When we get to the nub of it at committee, we discover that things that were painted a certain way were certainly not so.

For example, I think of the allegations around the Trudeau Foundation and foreign interference. When we started having people come to committee and being put under question, we discovered that there was no foreign interference. There was no quid pro quo for donations. Then that leaves us with the issue that it is just a question perhaps of bad management, which I think is something that is well worth exploring.

I guess the real point I am trying to tell the member is this: Is it not worth, on a serious allegation such as we are facing, to take the time, with cool heads, to investigate further to see where the problem was before we just lay out a number of unproven allegations, some of which I heard, disappointingly, in the hon. member's speech?

[Privilege, May 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of serving on several committees with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle. I would like to ask her a simple question. She said that she would have preferred to see the Prime Minister launch a public inquiry. Would she have been on board with the idea of the Prime Minister determining the parameters of that public inquiry she is calling for?

[Labour, May 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the advice I would have is to start the negotiations as early as we can. There are times where it would be unreasonable to expect any future government to start negotiations years in advance of the ending of a contract because conditions will change over time. If we go back three years, I do not think people would have predicted that we would have seen interest rates rise to 5% or 6% as they have. At the time, we were staying at historically low rates for almost a decade, so it would be unreasonable to expect that. However, as soon as they can, say a year out, it makes a lot of sense for governments to do that. I would encourage all future governments to ensure they sit down and negotiate an offer in good faith, and I hope the bargaining units will do the same, because it takes two to tango.

[Labour, May 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Before I answer his fundamental question, I would first like to provide an update to all my colleagues in the House of Commons and to Canadians.

As I am sure everyone is aware, we have reached a tentative agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC, for the four bargaining units in the core public administration. This is great news for employees and for Canadians.

It was not easy. We negotiated, we compromised and we found creative solutions. After long days, nights and weekends of hard work, we reached fair and competitive agreements for employees, with wage increases of 11.5% over four years, consistent with the recommendations made by the Public Interest Commission. These agreements are also reasonable for taxpayers and provide an additional year of stability and certainty.

The Government of Canada values the important role that public service employees play in providing services to Canadians. PSAC members play an essential role in this work, and these agreements will provide them with important benefits and improvements that recognize their vital contribution.

Now I would like to address the issue of services raised by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

There are a couple of things I will do.

First, I would like to directly answer why it took this long to have negotiations.

I would like to inform the hon. member that the Government of Canada tabled its negotiations just over a year ago. Unfortunately, PSAC chose not to negotiate with us. It walked away from the table. We were always there and ready at the table to start the negotiations so we could have avoided what we experienced over the last two weeks, but it was not to be. It was not until after the publication of the public interest report, as well the public interest commission's report, and some other processes related to the strike mandate before the unions returned to the table. We then negotiated night and day with the bargaining units at the table and came up with a deal that is not only fair and reasonable for public service employees, but also competitive, fair and reasonable for Canadians.

Therefore, I would be happy to talk to the member about the consequences of what has happened and the effects that this two-week strike has had on various services, but I see that I am running close to time, so I will wrap up here. I hope my colleague will allow me to continue providing him the response that he has sought.

[An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization, May 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot, but I will engage to get back to the member and find out why that was the case.

Labour is a very important element in terms of some of the key stakeholders, and we should be consulting not only with businesses, but also with labour, government and academics.

I do engage to get back to the member with a response.

[An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization, May 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Mirabel on this issue.

The committee he is a member of may be one of the House of Commons' most important committees. I am not sure what I did in my life to deserve to be a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I wanted to be a member of that committee because at a joint committee of senators and members, parliamentarians have an opportunity to really get to the bottom of things and to require that the machinery of government change or get rid of things that have been dragging on for years. There are consequences to violating the requests of the committee.

Bill S‑6 gives us the chance to modernize regulations, in a similar fashion to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I hope it will lighten that important committee's workload.

[An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization, May 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I know it sticks in the hon. member's craw that Canada is now making a transition to a clean, green economy, especially in key sectors, such as the automotive sector.

Let me get back to Bill S-6.

I can tell members why this process is so important. We are going to review all of the government regulations to ensure that they are still up to date. Any obsolete regulations that are no longer useful must be removed. We must be sure to remain competitive so that the Canadian economy performs and so that we can protect Canadians and especially the environment.

[An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization, May 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am very pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill S-6, an act respecting regulatory modernization. Regulations are the book of rules that govern how businesses operate and that protect consumers, the environment, our health and our safety. As we have seen, these rules can pile up and become obsolete over time. When that happens, innovation and growth are stifled, which weakens the economy and causes more problems for Canadians.

Modernizing our regulatory system improves Canada's ability to attract investment in growth-oriented businesses. That is why this bill is so important. It would have an important impact on Canadian businesses and advance public service efficiencies.

In a time of economic recovery, Bill S-6 would ensure that the legislative frameworks that support Canada's regulatory system evolve with the changing technologies and environment.

The fact is that we have been working on the modernization of regulations for some time. The Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1 amended 12 regulatory instruments with the first annual regulatory modernization bill. It included making changes to digitalize paper-based processes, streamlining the review process for zero-emission vehicles, and enabling innovation by changing regulatory requirements to test new products.

The fact is that regular and eminently sensible updates ensure greater competitiveness. At the same time, we must protect Canadians' health, safety and environment.

An important way to ensure that we can modernize and streamline regulations while protecting Canadians and the environment is to put in place an in-depth and effective review process. To that end, this bill will serve as a recurring legislative mechanism. This means that the Government of Canada can ensure that the regulatory system remains pertinent, effective and up to date. It is designed to address the legislative challenges raised by businesses and citizens through consultations and targeted regulatory reviews.

In fact, consultations with stakeholders in the business sector led to the inclusion of this recurring mechanism. The economic strategy tables and the Advisory Council on Economic Growth pointed out that creating a regular mechanism such as this is essential to improving Canada's regulatory system.

I would also like to point out that the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness, made up of stakeholders from business and academia and consumers, has recommended continuing efforts to keep the administrative burden of regulation at a reasonable level and to ensure that regulations stand the test of time.

At its core, Bill S-6 proposes to modify 28 different acts through 45 common-sense amendments to modernize our regulatory system.

For example, the bill contains amendments to the Fisheries Act that would make it clear that fisheries officers have the authority for minor violations to reach an agreement with fishers instead of taking them to court, an authority that was unclear in the existing legislation. Not only would this reduce the number of lengthy and costly court processes, but it would also ensure small violations do not result in criminal records and the stigma and barriers that could come as a result. Importantly, this change has been supported by the fishing community and by indigenous peoples.

Another example is the minor change proposed to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. In short, this amendment would allow the CFIA to provide services and allow businesses to interact with the agency electronically instead of through paper transactions. This will give businesses more flexibility in their interactions with the federal government, resulting in a reduced regulatory burden.

There are also proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act that would allow us to adopt international transportation safety standards faster, in consultation with the businesses affected.

As we have seen, even minor changes can often have a significant positive impact on various sectors of the economy, and I have covered only three of the 45 amendments included in this bill. In addition, all of the proposals are cost-neutral, with little or no associated risk.

Bill S-6 helps ensure that our regulatory system stays up to date and sets up Canadians and businesses for success in the years ahead by amending laws that are too inflexible, too specific or simply outdated. This bill is an important reminder of the need for ongoing regulatory review and legislation that stands the test of time.

I want to also assure all hon. members that the bill is not a one-off.

It will be an annual undertaking. In fact, work on the next bill is already under way.

The Canadian regulatory system plays a key role in helping companies succeed and in protecting Canadians and the environment. For our economy to keep growing, we need a more effective and streamlined regulatory system that keeps on delivering world-class protection for consumers, health, safety and the environment.

This is exactly what Bill S‑6 does. It helps modernize the current rules to make things easier for companies, and it will continue to set up regulatory agencies, stakeholders and Canadians for success. This is something we can all get behind.