Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time on my feet giving a speech, I would like to wish all my constituents a happy new year.
Happy new year to all my constituents. 2015 will no doubt be a very interesting year, one that I am sure will mark a major change in Canadian politics when an NDP government takes power.
Obviously, no one can oppose virtue. However, this bill is far from virtuous. I want to be clear with Canadians. I believe—as does my party, of course—in the principle of red tape reduction, which will reduce administrative hassles for business people. However, this bill does not significantly reduce the burden on small and medium-sized businesses, since it does not address most of the regulations that are problematic for them, namely those pertaining to all of the paperwork associated with taxes. When I visit small and medium-sized businesses in my riding, most of them complain about all of the paperwork required, particularly by Revenue Canada.
It is difficult to believe that the Conservatives are sincere about wanting to eliminate red tape since they did the opposite with the Building Canada fund, for example. Instead of helping municipalities and SMEs start infrastructure projects in a timely manner, the Conservatives set up a long and cumbersome bureaucratic process for every project worth more than $100 million. That will create delays of up to 18 months that will slow down important projects in my riding and the ridings of my colleagues.
The Conservatives did the same thing with their so-called employment insurance reform, which requires employers to provide more and more information about their employees. What is more, small and medium-sized business are not really getting any help when it comes to training and information. Such assistance would help them figure out all of the paperwork and send the right forms to the right people. This government is not really supporting small and medium-sized businesses.
If we really want to help small and medium-sized businesses, we can do better than this bill. For example, the Conservatives are dragging their feet when it comes to taking serious action to regulate anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. That is another example of bureaucracy and red tape.
If the Conservatives really wanted to help SMEs, they would have supported the NDP's idea to have an ombudsman to control the credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants. That was a simple and reasonable solution, but it was rejected by this government.
No, this bill is not good enough. The principle is good, but it is unclear whether it will achieve the expected results. What small businesses really need is for us to identify what is wrong with the system and eliminate it. It would take a simple study. The one-for-one rule is too vague, and there is no guarantee that it is going to work.
We also have to stop giving lip service to small and medium-size businesses and actually help them out, either by restoring the small business hiring tax credit for young people; reducing taxes for small businesses specifically, not the corporate tax rate for the largest and most successful businesses in this country; cracking down on hidden credit card transaction fees; and perhaps redefining what a small and medium-size business actually is for the purposes of government procurement contracts. These are major, tangible differences. These are changes that can help SMEs.
I do not know if members realize this, but the government currently defines small and medium-size businesses as businesses with 500 or fewer employees.
In my riding, SMEs have on average 12 employees. It is completely unrealistic to expect a company with 25 employees to compete with a so-called small business with 499 employees. That makes absolutely no sense. The system is not designed to consider criteria such as profit margins or staffing numbers, for example.
We could debate the service agreements that merchants sign with credit card companies, which favour small-business owners by allowing them to pass the fees on to consumers, thereby increasing all prices. Even though the Competition Tribunal recently rejected a lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard, in a rare move, it did call for the creation of a regulatory framework for anti-competitive practices.
Furthermore, to help small and medium-sized businesses, we could also create a tax credit to help businesses that hire and train young people or give grants to help SMEs expand. We could make it easier to transfer a family business to the next generation, for example, create tax credits that would offset payroll taxes, help small business innovate, and so on. In agriculture, we could do something about venture capital and the high interest rate for new land purchases.
Clearly, unlike the government's symbolic one-for-one legislation to reduce red tape, our proposals are sensible, concrete, realistic measures that would actually help Canadian SMEs create jobs. However, as the official opposition's Treasury Board critic, I have other, more serious concerns regarding this bill.
As is often the case with the Conservatives' bills, because of their almost uncontrollable zeal for defending the free market as they understand it at all costs, I see that they have hidden in this bill their intent to eliminate regulations that protect my constituents' health and safety and the environment.
After the listeriosis crisis and the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we need to guarantee, more than the government is doing, that there will be more, not fewer, standards and regulations to protect Canadians' health and safety.
Regulations that are in the public interest should be kept. This bill puts them in jeopardy because it gives the President of the Treasury Board the power to eliminate them under the pretext of cutting red tape for businesses. This is definitely not the recipe for sound public administration.
We are not alone in thinking that. During the study of the bill, Chris Aylward of PSAC testified before the committee. He said:
If regulations are no longer deemed to be in the public interest after due consideration and consultation, the regulators have always had the ability to amend or delete them. In fact, they have done so on a regular basis... Not only is Bill C-21 unnecessary, it will not adequately protect Canadians... At worst it is a make-work project that will mean regulatory and enforcement officers will have to spend their valuable time within a context of shrinking resources aimlessly looking for regulations to cut.
Furthermore, Laura Jones, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated that:
It's always going to be challenging, you know, where that line is drawn, because to get a bit more safety sometimes can be very costly, and different people will draw that line in different places.
It is all still quite vague.
It is true that the NDP wants to reduce red tape for small businesses, but we cannot do that at the expense of Canadians' safety. We cannot trust the Conservatives, who are in the habit of deregulating without any regard for safety, health or the environment. Their harmful record on eroding regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment is quite clear.
For example, in 2013, the then Minister of Transport gave WestJet an exemption from the Canadian aviation regulations. WestJet planes can now operate with just one flight attendant for every 50 passengers, rather than the standard one flight attendant for every 40 passengers, as required by the regulations. Other airlines have since asked for similar exemptions. It is only natural. Where will this end? The NDP has asked that the rule of one flight attendant for every 40 passengers be upheld.
The Lac-Mégantic tragedy also put the important issue of rail safety in Canada back on the agenda, after decades of Liberal and Conservative deregulation. In 1999, the Liberals persisted with the deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach, which was adopted by the Mulroney Conservatives. This approach left it up to the industry to look after the safety of its own operations—in other words, self-regulation, which no longer works—instead of ensuring that the government worked with the industry to set safety standards. That would be perfectly reasonable.
In October 2013, the Conservatives used the budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, and those changes will gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. This will jeopardize the health and safety of workers.
The Liberals were no better. I would remind the House that the Lac-Mégantic tragedy called decades of Liberal regulations into question. In 1999, the Liberals continued with the deregulation begun by the Mulroney government. No, the Liberals are no more reliable when it comes to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. Does the Liberal leader really have the judgment needed to defend the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians? I seriously doubt it.
It is not simply a question of managing the number of regulations to please the richest companies in Canada, but rather of determining which ones are helping Canadians. Therefore it is important that we do our research and our homework as good public administrators. This is a reasonable way to address this issue.
It is ridiculous that only the bill's preamble clearly states that the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. We all know that the legislation that will govern these regulations has no preamble. No mention is made of the environment in the entire bill. If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically protect health and safety regulations from the application of the bill?
Why did they not support our amendments in that regard when studying this bill? The NDP moved 12 amendments; that is not a lot. They were robust amendments, and nine of them would have prevented the government from eliminating regulations that protect Canadians' health and safety, food safety, transportation safety, the safety management system and the environment. One amendment would have required the government to just consult with stakeholders before eliminating regulations. Another amendment laid out the reporting requirements and eliminated the Governor in Council's power to make new regulations for the report.
If the Conservatives are serious, why did they vote against all these amendments? The amendments are reasonable and truly reflect all the evidence we heard in committee. The Conservatives said that these amendments were redundant. That is absolutely not the case. It is obvious that giving the President of the Treasury Board more powers is not what is needed for sound public administration.
The NDP believes in common sense solutions to reduce red tape and the compliance costs for small businesses when they deal with the government. The NDP is always open to ways to help small businesses by eliminating unnecessary red tape and letting them focus on what they do best: growing their businesses and creating jobs. However, the best way of doing this is not the one-for-one rule. It is rigorous research and broad consultation with the business community to identify those bureaucratic demands that are really causing problems.
This bill is a poison pill. Bill C-21 gives the President of the Treasury Board too many arbitrary powers that will make him the arbiter of eliminating regulations that he deems unnecessary. If the Conservatives are really serious about the health and safety of Canadians, I hope they will answer during this debate why they will not explicitly exclude regulations that protect health and safety from the application of this bill and why they opposed the NDP amendments that did that very thing.
Government regulations to protect Canadians' health and safety and the environment should remain a priority of any government. We need more than the government's promises of a preamble. The NDP would like to prevent the government from eliminating the regulations that protect health, safety, food security, and workplace health and safety, and this is why we are opposing this bill.
We want to make sure that future generations are not affected by the deregulation this bill would cause. Our fellow citizens deserve to be protected, as well as our children and grandchildren. Also, any bill of this kind should include clear obligations in terms of accountability for how the government uses this legislation and for the stakeholders who are consulted before regulation is eliminated. However, the Conservatives voted against this accountability in committee. Regulations that are in the public interest should clearly be consulted on with the public.
It is a matter of good public administration. It is about protecting our children, keeping them healthy and safe, and protecting the beauty of their natural environment, while finding a way to eliminate red tape. As I said before, we can do this by conducting a study in partnership with the public service and our small and medium-sized businesses and by using our heads.
