Hon. Larry W. Smith: Honourable senators, I rise at third reading in my capacity as critic to speak to Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

Colleagues, I will offer some brief remarks and highlight some of my concerns based on what I heard at committee from both the government and stakeholders.

The intent of Bill S-6 is commendable, seeking to reduce the regulatory burden for Canadian businesses and create an environment which enables economic innovation and growth. I believe that regular and ongoing efforts around regulatory modernization, as is committed to by the federal government, could be greatly beneficial for the business community in Canada.

As an example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business told the Senate Banking Committee:

. . . until recently, many small businesses told us that they kept a fax machine for the sole purpose of dealing with governments and meeting their requirements. . . .

I am concerned, however, with the process by which Bill S-6 has been brought to the Senate for study.

To begin, Treasury Board officials told our Senate Banking Committee that public consultations were launched in 2019 via the Canada Gazette in order to allow stakeholders to bring the attention of the government to regulatory issues that impacted them.

Senator Colin Deacon quickly picked up on this process, highlighting that the Canada Gazette may not be the most effective means of communicating with industry today, especially with new and emerging players who are not familiar with the seemingly antiquated process.

I could not agree more with Senator Deacon. The Canada Gazette as a vehicle for consultations and communication with industry today is not the most effective tool.

Many of us here are all too familiar with the outdated, clunky and slow publication process that is the Canada Gazette, and it is being used in an effort to modernize Canada’s regulatory framework.

Colleagues, I think it may be time to bring the Canada Gazette into the 21st century before we bring Canada’s patchwork of regulatory frameworks into the 21st century. Nevertheless, I am pleased to learn that the government has been working on alternative means of consulting with industry, which includes online portals that are designed to broaden the reach of the process to more stakeholders.

Lastly, I would like to highlight the visible disconnect between government and industry, which appears to be a recurring theme at our Banking Committee.

We heard at committee the need for government to not only offer extensive consultations but also to engage with stakeholders.

Speaking about the federal government’s new regulatory consultation portal, Mr. Robin Guy of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce noted:

. . . it’s a new portal, but we have to see how these things work operationally. It can’t just be business putting in feedback without response. There needs to be a two-way conversation, which, I guess, you could call a negotiation. From our side, we would hope that it is a two-way street and that it’s not just information going into a system and never coming back out.

Additionally, Senator Rob Black, Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, appeared before the Banking Committee to speak about the divisions of Bill S-6 that were delegated to his committee. Speaking of the consultation process, he said:

. . . the committee believes that the Government of Canada should ensure that future consultation processes for regulatory modernization bills and initiatives meet several key criteria. In particular, the processes should be transparent, interactive and inclusive of all relevant stakeholders, including both those who are well-established in and those who are new entrants to a particular sector. . . .

Finally, in a submission to our Banking Committee, the Canadian National Millers Association raised concerns that regulated industries had no way of knowing what changes would be included or excluded from Bill S-6 before the final text of the bill was tabled in the Senate. They noted that:

[Treasury Board Secretariat] has liberty and the means (human resources and protocols) to consult with stakeholders on what regulatory modernizations might possibly be included during the drafting of the next [regulatory modernization bill] without disclosing the final content of the bill before tabling in Parliament via either the Senate or the House of Commons.

Colleagues, the stakeholders in regulated industries, in my view, are best positioned to provide feedback on how regulation impacts their businesses.

For example, a more proactive approach to communication by the federal government with industry would have prevented the inclusion of Part 6 in Bill S-6 which, had it not been removed at committee, would have superseded the extensive regulatory revision efforts of Health Canada currently under way on pest‑control products.

Colleagues, Bill S-6 is the first of a series of ongoing legislative efforts to modernize Canada’s regulatory frameworks. As such, the federal government needs to ensure that the process by which regulatory modernization takes place is properly coordinated internally. Moreover, the government needs to commit to more extensive, fulsome and engaging consultations with stakeholders to ensure the regulatory modernization efforts are effective. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016, with amendments), presented in the Senate on June 15, 2022.