Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

There is room for clarification in this bill. As it is only two or three pages long, there could be some clarification. I am obviously not in a position to propose an amendment as I will be chairing the committee meetings. That will not be part of my role.

I will be very pleased to help out during the debate by doing the job of chair to the best of my abilities and trying to have all parties reach an agreement. I believe that the goal in committee is to do important work, work that is productive and moves things along. I believe that committee chairs have a role to play by achieving consensus among the members and ensuring that amendments to bills are adopted, even those proposed by the government. I believe that this is possible. We must be open to all possibilities when studying a bill in committee. I hope that all my colleagues, whether or not they belong to my party, will raise important points during the debate and perhaps propose amendments.

I am very interested in seeing what happens with this bill and participating in the next debate.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Will the bill achieve that goal? I doubt it. Five years after the bill is passed, I would like to poll the SMEs and ask whether they have felt a decrease in the administrative burden since Bill C-21 passed. I am very curious and I will try to remember to go see the SMEs and ask them that because I highly doubt that this bill will have a significant impact.

It is important and it should have a significant impact because SMEs play a key role in our communities. In Sherbrooke, they are major employers. It is important to encourage them in many ways. Reducing red tape for them will give them more time to invest money in the expansion, visibility and growth of their business.

As members of Parliament and Canadian citizens, we must support our small and medium-sized businesses every day.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention. He seems to be a little sensitive. I just want to say that my notes are all handwritten. I have not sent them to anyone in the House. I have been here since the debate began at 3 p.m., and I am the only one to have pointed out those two terms in the bill. I am surprised by what the member said, but I thank him for his intervention all the same. I will try to be more original, and I hope that he will pay attention to what I have to say. It is important to have debate in the House. My colleague seems to be suggesting that imposing time allocation will enhance debate. I completely disagree with that. It is important for every member of Parliament to have an opportunity to express his or her opinion. That way, as we move through the process, we all know what the others think. That moves the debate forward.

In the time I have left, I would like to continue with my examination of Bill C-21 and the terms used therein. That slowed me down a little, which is a shame, because I had a lot to say.

Another thing I noticed has to do with the preamble. My colleague spoke about this and probably did a better job than I could, so I will not cover that portion of my speech. However, when a judge has to interpret the provisions of an act, the preamble has absolutely no effect or legal value. My colleague from Brossard—La Prairie did a good job covering this earlier, so I will move on to something else.

The other part of the bill that got my attention was this one-for-one rule. This had previously been announced by the government, so this rule already exists and is already applied within the departments. The rule is reinforced in the bill, since it will be enshrined in law. However, this law has no teeth and will do very little. This is clear in clause 8:

8. (1) No action or other proceeding may be brought against Her Majesty in right of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done, or for anything purported to be done or omitted to be done, under this Act.

(2) No regulation is invalid by reason only of a failure to comply with this Act.

This means that the one-for-one rule that the government just put in a bill will have no effect, since if this one-for-one rule—which will become law when this bill passes—is violated, there will be no consequences. If a department decides to make a new regulation and does not eliminate another one, there are no legal consequences. As a result, departments will not be bound by this law, since there are two provisions protecting them and giving them immunity if they do not abide by the law.

This proves once again that this bill is a smokescreen. This is a way for the government to say that it is a champion of small business.

The ultimate irony here is that the government has created six opportunities to increase the number of regulations with this bill. Clause 7 creates five opportunities for the minister to make regulations. The same goes for clause 10. It will be argued that the regulations in this bill do not apply to businesses, but I find it rather ironic to see that in a bill designed to reduce red tape, the government has included six provisions enabling the minister to create more.

I will be very pleased to take questions from my colleagues.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their warm reception.

I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-21 today, in part as the member for the beautiful riding of Sherbrooke and in part as the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which will be responsible for studying Bill C-21 when the time comes.

I would like to begin by reassuring my colleagues. I will be sharing my views on the bill. However, that will not affect my ability to be impartial as we study the bill in committee. As chair of the committee, I must remain neutral during debates and possible amendments during the clause-by-clause stage. I simply want to reassure those colleagues who will discern from my speech that I have a few opinions on the bill.

After reading the bill, I had the impression that it was more of a smokescreen than anything else, which I will explain. The premise behind this bill was first announced in the throne speech in 2012, a couple of years ago. The government reaffirmed it in 2013. All that to say that the government talks about this often, but it took a while to come up with a bill.

I think it is also a smokescreen in terms of its contents. It seems to me that this is merely a way for the government to boast about reducing red tape and doing something for small business owners, when really, the bill actually does very little in that regard. That is why I feel that the bill is more of a smokescreen than anything else and that it allows the government to brag about being a champion of small business.

If we look at the Conservatives' record, it is clear that the reality is quite the opposite. This is a nice way for the government to talk about this, but there are gaps when it comes to taking action.

First of all, even the title of the bill shows that it lacks consistency. The official long title is An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, while the short title is the Red Tape Reduction Act. There is a contradiction there.

I am sure people will ask me if there really is a difference between the words “control” and “reduce” or if they really are opposites. Perhaps they are not opposites, according to the dictionary definition. Nevertheless, I do think there is a difference between “control” and “reduce”. In my view, when you control something, it can still increase, but it increases as little as possible, but when you reduce something, you end up with a smaller amount, and that is obviously one way of moving towards fewer regulations. However, both terms are used in the bill.

Why—

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about this in her speech, but can she confirm that she thinks, as I do, that regulations can be beneficial and that there have to be some rules?

I am thinking of the deregulation we have seen in rail safety. Deregulation has happened in many other sectors too. As we have seen, when companies are allowed to self-regulate, their systems are very often flawed.

Does she think that deregulation can go too far and that if we let deregulation go too far and let companies self-regulate, that can be dangerous for Canadians and our society?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She does indeed seem very aware of the concerns of small and medium-sized businesses. That is a good thing. Most of our colleagues are in close contact with small and medium-sized businesses, since they deal with them every day as part of their jobs as members of Parliament.

I get the impression that this bill is a smokescreen more than anything else, especially since, as I mentioned earlier, it will not necessarily reduce red tape. The bill will limit it, which is a good thing.

However, in its public communications, the government spoke about reduction, when ultimately this bill will only limit the administrative burden for small and medium-sized businesses.

Does the member think that the government was truly sincere in its communications with the public when it said that this would reduce red tape? This measure will effectively have little impact and will simply limit, at best, the administrative burden that companies have to deal with.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to expand on what I was saying earlier, because I have read the provisions in Bill C-21. I said that the one-for-one rule would not necessarily reduce red tape, it would just control it. Bill C-21 is titled “An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses”, and the short title is the “Red Tape Reduction Act”.

I have a hard time with the fact that those two terms are used in the same bill. I am wondering which of the two is more appropriate. Does the government want to control the burden or reduce it? The title and the short title say two different things.

Could my colleague tell us which title is more appropriate? What were the Conservatives really trying to say when they drafted this bill?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech.

I was not the best math student during elementary and high school. However, when the government makes one regulation and eliminates another, the one-for-one rule—as it is commonly known in this bill—is applied. If each time the government makes a new regulation it eliminates another one, I believe that there are still just as many regulations. There is no reduction in red tape.

Why is my colleague talking about reducing red tape when the one-for-one rule simply means that there are just as many regulations as before? The number of regulations will not increase, fortunately, but it will not decrease either. Can she expand on that?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

We know that Bill C-44 is not a direct response to the events of October 20 and 22. The government announced other measures in reaction to those events. I would like to hear the member's opinion on the legislator's responsibility to react responsibly.

Does the member think that reacting to specific events or isolated cases is the right way for the legislator to make laws? I have raised this question in the House on a number of occasions over the past three and a half years. I would therefore like to know what she thinks about the legislator's responsibility to be cautious. The threats change and society changes, but the laws remain. That is why it is important for us, in the House, as legislators, to be responsible when it comes to the new laws that will be passed in response to very specific and often isolated incidents.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian national anthem was heard for the first time in June 1880 at the French-Canadian National Congress. It had been commissioned by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Théodore Robitaille. The lyrics were written by Adolphe-Basile Routhier and the music, by Calixa Lavallée. One of the most famous lines in the French version is “protégera nos foyers et nos droits”, which is about protecting our homes and our rights.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that it is important to protect our homes and our rights at the same time, rather making them mutually exclusive. Would he agree that it is important to protect our homes and our rights, without putting them at odds with each other, in order to ensure that our homes are indeed protected and that our rights are as well?