So V ote

May/3/23 10:36:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I hope the interpretation services are paying attention because I will say this slowly. What I would do is take Quebec, leave Canada and there would no longer be a federal government. We would get rid of half the departments and we would be none the worse for it.

51 words

All Topics

May/3/23 10:34:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I am not privy to the conversations and dealings that led to this situation. I will repeat what I said earlier. This is nonsense. When a bill is given second reading, we accept the principle and decide whether to refer it to committee for study, because we agree with the spirit of the bill, because it is a great idea. We are talking about small regulatory changes that affect a lot of statutes and that require a very technical evaluation. It is by definition committee work. Those who think it is a good idea to debate this for hours, until midnight, have not been following the debates. The quality of the content of the speeches is proof that the House of Commons is not the place to go into great detail. This is committee work. I am disappointed, because there is plenty of work to be done. We have plenty of legislation to study. There is no shortage of debates to be had. We are missing out on good opportunities to work intelligently.

175 words

All Topics

May/3/23 10:23:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, it is 10:20 p.m. on a Wednesday night. I know that members have been looking forward to the highlight of the evening, obviously my speech. I just want to take a moment to recognize the hard-working employees of the House who are with us this evening. I want to thank the pages in particular. We often forget about them, but they are here for us and they work with us. They are our work colleagues. I saw some of them studying earlier. I even tried to help one of them solve integrals, but without success. I will have to review my math. In short, I want to thank them. I want them to know that we know that they work hard and that we think highly of them. Let us look at the bill for what it is. In the description I have here, it talks about minor regulatory amendments to “reduce administrative burden for business, facilitate digital interactions with government, simplify regulatory processes” and so on. Let us be honest. This is a routine bill. Once in a while, the government adjusts the regulations and updates laws and standards. We should not be debating this for six hours, which is what we are doing until midnight tonight. This is a waste of time. It does not make any sense. It is the very embodiment of parliamentary inefficiency. This bill has no principle or even spirit. These are regulatory changes. The bill should be sent directly to committee for study. It amends a whole pile of legislation. That requires expertise. I think it is a shameful waste of the House's resources and members' time to be messing around with this bill until midnight. Still, it contains some important and interesting elements. It is true that it will make life easier for businesses and that it will simplify many things. There is a little bit of everything and a whole lot of nothing in there. There are bits about electricity, gas, the use of new technologies. We want to encourage international harmonization of standards. I know everyone is passionate about that; I can see it in their faces. People are as passionate as I am about this. We are talking about gas standards, weights and measures. We are talking about allowing more flexibility for new technologies, another one of my biggest passions. We are also going to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that there is no more confusion between the annual report and the annual declaration, so that some companies do not get delisted without their knowledge, as Jean Perron said. There are a bunch of changes like that. Some are more substantial. The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act is being amended, for example. Essentially, when there are changes to standards and regulations, that needs to be published in the Canada Gazette. Members, parliamentarians, the public and experts in the field need to be keep abreast through the Canada Gazette. What we are doing here is repealing section 15 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, which requires these publications. We understand the spirit of the bill because the Standards Council of Canada conducted an analysis of 19 Natural Resources Canada regulations. It became apparent that there were artefacts and old stock, that 167 of the 367 standards were removed, replaced, were no longer managed or no longer served any purpose. What we are saying here is that we are going to facilitate the process of regulatory changes. There are essentially a few little problems because in the bill as written, there is no distinction between minor, cosmetic, functional changes and changes that might be more substantial. Regulations and standards in the oil sector are important, as members know. There are a bunch of standards like that. I referred to them earlier when I was asking questions of some of my colleagues, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. This serves to remind us that the government has legislative tools available to adjust regulations or minor pieces of legislation that are ill-suited, contain errors or have aged poorly, and that it can do so routinely, as we are doing today. I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Not many people know a lot about that committee, but essentially, we assess problems that may exist in regulations. There are legal advisers who tell us, for example, that the French version does not say the same thing as the English version, or that there is an issue because the interpretation of certain regulations may be ambiguous for the courts and could cause problems. There have even been cases where there were potential charter violations. The way the regulations were written could have caused major concerns. This week, this committee issued a notice of disallowance for an order. The problem went back 25 years. It is not uncommon for us to write to ministers one, two, three, four or five times and not get a response or a visit. Some of our correspondence is as old as Methuselah. We go back and forth with the department but do not get any answers. I would urge the government to think about that and think about the importance of correcting these errors in current laws. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé was saying that this legislation had been written five years ago and was only now being debated. There have been issues in some laws for a long time. They never get resolved, and we are being kept waiting. I am appealing to the sensitivity of the government members. Beyond that, if we want to simplify matters, if we want to make things better for businesses, the business community and taxpayers, there are solutions that we could debate. One of them is Quebec's independence. I know how much everybody loves filing two tax returns. We spoke about that earlier. However, do we really want two finance departments? That results in two tax rates, two finance ministers, two finance departments, two sets of public servants who draw up budgets and study estimates. That is inefficient. It might be worthwhile eliminating one of them. We have two revenue agencies, one in Ottawa and one in Quebec City. We could fix that. In addition, if we had a single tax return, we could reassign the CRA employees working in Quebec offices to other tasks for which they are qualified, without cutting any jobs. This would result in greater productivity and savings for our businesses. That would be a good thing. It would also be a good thing if we no longer had two environment ministers with two sets of standards. That would be pretty good. It would be a good thing if we did not have two governments bickering over who will have first crack at the tax base, who will be the first to claim a GST point or a QST point. We could eliminate all these inefficiencies. I can guess what my colleagues are thinking. I know that the two health ministers are on their minds. The first minister manages hospitals and provides services. The second imposes conditions. The first is not sure whether they want the transfer because they are wondering whether it costs more to submit all the reports in order to meet the conditions. It is almost not worth taking the money. That is not even to mention the fact that the tax rules for the capital allowance are inconsistent between Quebec and Ottawa, which causes confusion for businesses and takes up more resources. There is also the matter of diplomacy, international relations, and Canadian embassies and Quebec offices around the world. How inefficient is that? It is no less inefficient than having two departments of transport or duplicating environmental assessments because Ottawa insists on having its own, thereby violating Quebec's environmental sovereignty. Quebec is also being told what to do in the area of infrastructure because Ottawa wants to impose standards. It has even gotten to the point where the Conservatives want housing standards. There is also duplication of work and conditions imposed for post-secondary education. The federal government is even interfering in the hiring of university professors and research chairs. I am not talking about immigration mix-ups. Why not hand that over to Quebec City? Why not do the same with housing, the French language and labour law? There is a federal labour law and a provincial labour law, two innovation departments, two natural resources departments, two departments that deal with climate change. Here, there is heritage, which is supposed to take care of the French language, yet does not care what Quebec's department of culture wants. When things are light, life is good. Everyone likes that. Therefore, in order to make things lighter, we should leave Canada. We should leave. I am certain the other nine provinces can have a lot of fun without us.

1508 words

All Topics

May/3/23 8:59:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, there is the matter of the intergenerational transfer of businesses. That is a very important issue in agriculture. Some legislative amendments were made to change the way capital gains are treated, which makes intergenerational transfers more equitable. Now, many businesses are saying that this transfer has be done gradually. Sometimes, the parents let their children buy shares in the company or family farm bit by bit. That is something that many businesses asked for, but unfortunately, the law does not allow for that practice right now. I am wondering whether the member would like comment on improving the business climate, particularly for family farms.

106 words

All Topics

May/3/23 7:44:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, Bill S‑6 contains a lot of little regulatory changes that we are told can make a big difference for the business community. It seems to me that some big changes, like Quebec's independence, could eliminate some major duplication and simplify the lives of Canadians, Quebeckers and businesses. I am wondering whether my colleague can give us a few more examples on this lovely evening.

69 words

All Topics

May/3/23 7:40:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague from Joliette is very passionate about the issue of tax evasion. I understand, because we are constantly told that there is not enough money for health transfers. We are told that there is not enough money for the provinces. However, at the same time, we are depriving ourselves of important sources of revenue. That said, with respect to tax evasion, there is always one country saying that it cannot be the first to make changes, because it must wait for the others to do so. Ultimately, no one ever does anything. I would like to ask my colleague the following question: In this matter, why is Canada not showing any international leadership?

119 words

All Topics

May/3/23 7:29:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from the member for Kingston and the Islands. Clearly, the national housing strategy has been a failure. The Conservative strategy is to get back on track and attack our elected municipal officials by judging their work and telling them that they are not capable of making the right decisions. I would like to point out that the elected officials of the Union des municipalités du Québec are in Gatineau right now. I want to say hello and let them know that we appreciate their work and their skills, and we are happy that they are here. The member and her party say they will respect provincial jurisdictions and stop imposing conditions on them. At the same time, in their opposition motion, they said they would impose conditions on municipalities and, if they do not listen to what know-it-all Ottawa says, they would take away their funding. How is that possible?

168 words

All Topics

May/3/23 7:23:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, Bill S-6 contains a series of regulatory changes that could make life simpler for companies and the business community in Quebec and Canada. Not to make any assumptions, Madam Speaker, but you do not look like someone who would want to file two tax returns, because your time is valuable and you do not want to waste it doing the same thing twice. I know you do not want to file two tax returns, and neither do Quebec businesses. This was confirmed by a motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly calling for a single tax return. Until Quebec becomes a country and we are independent, does my colleague not think that it would be a good idea to make life simpler for our business owners by allowing them to file a single tax return?

139 words

All Topics

May/3/23 6:56:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for speaking French. It was excellent. The bill would repeal section 15 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. As a result, regulatory changes to oil and gas operations would essentially no longer have to be published in Part I of the Canada Gazette. The Senate debates revealed that many regulations are irrelevant, no longer used and no longer managed, and that changes could facilitate the process. As it stands, however, Bill S‑6 does not distinguish between minor regulatory changes and changes that would be much more consequential. I am wondering if my colleague believes that this matter could be studied in committee to ensure that there is still a certain obligation to publish substantive regulatory changes that do not simply seek to simplify the process.

142 words

All Topics