Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[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?

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

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

I have a specific question for him on something that he left out of his speech, and that is civilian oversight of CSIS.

This bill provides more power to CSIS. However, it makes no mention of better oversight of CSIS, which is charged with ensuring that everything is consistent with the law and our rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens.

Does the hon. member think it is necessary to have better oversight of CSIS given that the current oversight seems inadequate in many ways? Why is there nothing in this bill about better oversight when it is already falling short and CSIS is being given more power?

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for mentioning what happened in committee. I find it indeed surprising and strange that a private member's bill would exclude offences under the Elections Act as grounds for removing the pension of a member who breaks the law.

How interesting that it happened today, considering that the decision about the member for Peterborough was handed down on October 31. What a surprise that this should happen today. Is it a coincidence? Was it planned and expected? Probably. It would be a great shame and disappointment to know that the Conservatives are trying to protect a former colleague by trying not to amend this private member's bill, an amendment that would make it cover the Elections Act.

That would be simple to do, after all. All laws, when broken, should be treated equally when it comes to pension matters.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my entire speech was meant to answer the question that the member for Winnipeg North has been asking from the beginning of this debate.

Once again, I ask him to refer to page 244 of O'Brien and Bosc. Of course, he can refer to the English version.

The paragraph entitled “Expulsion” reads as follows:

Once a person is elected to the House of Commons, there are no constitutional provisions and few statutory provisions for removal of that Member from office. The statutory provisions rendering a Member ineligible to sit or vote do not automatically cause the seat of that Member to become vacant.

I would also like to refer to Maingot, which O'Brien and Bosc refers to at footnote 471:

471. ...[The] Canada Elections Act, s. 502(3), [the paragraph the Liberals have been quoting all along] which stipulates that a person who has been found guilty of an illegal or corrupt practice cannot be elected to or sit and vote in the House of Commons. Similarly, the Criminal Code...provides that a Member convicted of an indictable offence, for which the sentence is two or more years of imprisonment, may not be elected to or sit or vote in the House.

The footnote concludes:

Nonetheless, neither statute contains provisions declaring the Member’s seat vacant.

Maignot confirms that:

The Canada Elections Act provides for the election of the Member, but when duly elected, the House alone is the body to determine whether a Member shall remain a Member.

I hope this answers the member's question and that he is now enlightened.