OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 109 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, September 15, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 15, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 109 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 109 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 109 (Version officielle) 147 109 15 09 2014 2014/09/15 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers (1100) [ English ] Bill C-479,

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders The Speaker : I wish to inform the House of an administrative error that occurred with regard to Bill C-479,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims) . [ Translation ] Members may recall that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security made a series of amendments to the bill, which were presented to the House in the committee's second report on March 5, 2014.

The committee also ordered that the bill, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage. [ English ] On May 7, 2014, the House concurred in the bill as amended at report stage with a further amendment, and later adopted the bill at third reading. [ Translation ] As is the usual practice following passage at third reading, House officials prepared a parchment version of the bill and transmitted this parchment to the Senate.

Due to an administrative error, the version of the bill that was transmitted to the other place did not reflect the amendment adopted by the House at report stage, but was instead a reflection of the bill as it had been reported back from committee. Unfortunately, this error was not detected until after both houses had adjourned for the summer. [ English ] I wish to reassure the House that this error was strictly administrative in nature and occurred after third reading was given to Bill C-479 .

The proceedings which took place in this House and the decisions made by the House with respect to Bill C-479 remain entirely valid. The records of the House relating to this bill are clear and complete. [ Translation ] However, the documents relating to Bill C-479 that were sent to the other place were not an accurate reflection of the House’s decisions. [ English ] My predecessor, Speaker Milliken, addressed a similar situation in a ruling given on November 22, 2001, and found on page 7455 of Debates . Guided by this precedent, similar steps have been undertaken in this case.

First, once this discrepancy was detected, House officials immediately communicated with their counterparts in the Senate to set about resolving it. Next, I have instructed the Acting Clerk and his officials to take the necessary steps to rectify this error and to ensure that the other place has a corrected copy of Bill C-479 which reflects the proceedings which occurred in this House. Thus, a revised version of the bill will be transmitted to the other place through the usual administrative procedures of Parliament. Finally, I have asked that the “as passed at third reading” version of the bill be reprinted.

The Senate will of course make its own determination as to how it proceeds with Bill C-479 in light of this situation. I wish to reassure members that steps have been taken to ensure that similar errors, rare though they may be, do not reoccur. I thank hon. members for their attention.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act Bill C-520. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-520,

An Act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament , as reported (with amendments) from the committee. (1105) [ English ] Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : There are 11 motions and amendments standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-520 . Motions Nos. 1 to 11 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 11 to the House.

[ English ] Motions in Amendment Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) moved: Motions Nos. 1 to 7

Motion No. 1 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 1. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 2. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 3. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 4. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 5. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 7. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 8. [ Translation ] Mr.

Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) Motion No. 8 moved: Motion No. 8 That Bill C-520, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 39 to 41 on page 4 with the following: “responsibilities of the position in the office of the agent of Parliament, conduct” [ English ] Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) moved: Motions Nos. 9 to 11 Motion No. 9 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 11. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 12. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 13. He said: Mr.

Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and to have the first speech in what might be the final session of this Parliament. The debate we are having today is very telling. We in this House represent our partisan interests. We are a party-based system, so we are expected to come in wearing our partisan interests. However, all of us, regardless of what party we are in, have a larger responsibility, in that we are parliamentarians.

We are part of a system of democratic accountability that has been worked out in the Westminster tradition through centuries. Each one of the precedents that have been established in the various Westminster systems establishes a code of conduct that we are all supposed to be part of, which is that the overall obligation of Parliament is to represent the interests of the Canadian people in an accountable and fair manner. However, what we have seen with the current government is a steady attack on the basic institutions that hold this Parliament to account.

We are now moving to the stage where this Parliament has become very much a Potemkin democracy. Certainly we have debates and we have votes, but it is becoming more and more of a charade in which the powers of decision-making are being moved into the executive around the Prime Minister 's Office through cabinet secrecies without accountability, and Canadians are left watching a spectacle in this House that is often a degradation of the very notion of parliamentary accountability.

We see that what has happened in this Parliament under the current majority government is a steady attack on the officers of Parliament. People back home need to understand that the role of the officers in Parliament is of non-partisan experts whose job is to hold parliamentarians, bureaucrats, and cabinet ministers to account. However, that runs counter to the Conservative notion of accountability, which is hold their enemies to account and use the levers and powers of government to go after their straw men and their perceived enemies.

All parliamentarians have to be engaged in ensuring that our parliamentary officers have the powers they need to ensure a functioning democracy. These officers include the ethics commissioner, the lobbying commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the access to information commissioner, Elections Canada, and official languages. As well, we have recently brought in a parliamentary budget office. Let us look at the pattern under the current government before we get to this rather ridiculous bill that we are debating today.

Everyone remembers the absolutely vicious trashing of the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, whose credibility probably ranks him as one of the most respected public servants I have met in my public career and who was relentlessly attacked because he was not a toady for the Prime Minister 's Office. We see the attack on Elections Canada and the attempt to change the electoral laws to make it illegal for the Elections Canada officer to speak out about the basic rights Canadians have in a voting democracy.

Certainly they had to pull back some of those amendments because they were so far over the line, but the attack from the Prime Minister 's spokesman on the credibility of Elections Canada is once again moving us much further across this moral Rubicon that the Conservatives crossed many years ago. We saw the gutting of the Conflict of Interest Act when they brought in recommendations that not a single witness supported or even talked about because they were so ridiculous.

The gutting of the Conflict of Interest Act is so ridiculous that the Conservatives would now hold 250,000 civil servants to the same account as a parliamentary secretary. People working in a Service Canada call centre in Moose Jaw would now be under the ethics commissioner in the same way as a parliamentary secretary who is receiving money from lobbyists for fundraisers. They would be held to the same account. The Conservatives have watered down the act to make it virtually useless.

We see their use of government resources against charities, again their perceived enemies, by using the Income Tax Act to go after Oxfam and tell Oxfam, an internationally respected organization, that in the country of Canada it cannot declare that it is out to fight poverty.

(1110) We see the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who always has a light bulb burning half bright with some of the motions that she has brought forward. She has now brought forward this motion that NGOs, which are health organizations and international groups, will have to announce what kind of international money and connections are backing them. This is not about going after backroom lobbyists or bureaucrats; it is about going after charities and NGOs. I was looking at the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke's bill.

The only bills similar to it anywhere in the world are in Belarus, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China. There is not a credible western democracy that would use its levers of government to go after NGOs, except the current government. We see with Bill C-520 , which was rightly called a government witch hunt, that there is no legislation anywhere in the world that is even close to what is proposed here. This is a fascinating bill, because it was so badly thought out and such an overreach that the Conservatives could not bring any witnesses to back it up.

Even right-wing ideologues with tinfoil hats would not come forward to defend this ugly baby. The government did not want any witnesses, so it had to strip its own bill because the bill was so odious. Under this bill, a parliamentary secretary under investigation for receiving all kinds of money for lobbyists could demand an investigation of the lobbying commissioner. Again, the people who are supposed to be investigated are the ones who have the power to do the investigating.

This bill, which was called a witch hunt, is an attack on the credibility of independent parliamentary officers so that now they have to make declarations. There is not much left in this bill. This bill was so odious that, my God, the poor Conservatives had come in and squeeze all the ugly guts out. They were pale when having to deal with it because it was such a dumbed-down bill, but what they left in it was the obligation that if someone is working in the ethics office or wants to work for the Privacy Commissioner, that person has to make a declaration of all his or her political activity going back 10 years.

An hon. member: And forward. Mr. Charlie Angus: And forward. This is about the Conservatives searching out the hidden Liberals underneath the bedcovers. This is about attacking the fundamental merit-based system that we have for approving the officers of Parliament. One would think that there is some kind of problem that they were responding to, but no.

Other than Conservative smears against the Elections Canada office, there has never been a case that has ever shown that the people who work in the access to information commission or the privacy commission, the officers of Parliament, have ever done this in a partisan manner that needed investigation. In fact, they are already covered under

part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, the Political Activities Regulations, and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. We are talking about some of the most qualified and highly credible people in our system, but the government is saying we cannot trust them. Therefore, we have a situation in which a bill is being brought forward that allows the Conservatives, when they are under investigation, to say that nine years ago a secretary in someone's office was on a riding association and there must be some kind of political skulduggery, because she also had a sign on her lawn.

This is about undermining a credible system that is in place. Viewers back home should always remember this: the role of government is to be accountable to the Canadian people, and there are institutions that hold government to account. The Conservative government believes that it is accountable to no one and can undermine the basic rules of parliamentary process so that they can hold the people who are supposed to be investigating them to account. We have sat through the discussion on this bill. The Conservatives have brought forward no witnesses. We have seen nothing credible.

They have absolutely no basis for this bill. It has been called a despicable witch hunt, which it is, and now it is just an non-credible witch hunt. The fact is that the government had to basically strip its own bill down to nothing. Let us save the member for York Centre further embarrassment. Let us kill this bill now and stop this spineless attack on the institutions that hold Parliament accountable.

(1115) Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome all of the members back from a long summer in their constituencies, and who serve the people who place their trust in us. Welcome back, to all of my colleagues. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide the government's response to Bill C-520,

an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament . I am certain most would agree that non-partisanship is an essential element of both the professional public administration and responsible democratic government. A non-partisan public service is one where appointments are based on merit and are free of political influence, and where public servants perform their duties and are seen to perform their duties in a politically impartial manner.

The government values this vital feature of our Westminster system of government and is committed to safeguarding the principle of political impartiality, which is why it is pleased to support the bill before us. We are privileged in this country. We have one of the best public services in the world. Public servants are vital to the success of our country. No government, of any partisan stripe, can maintain and build a strong, united, and secure Canada without the assistance of a professional, capable public service that is committed to the public interest.

One has to only look at the public service awards of excellence to see how public servants make a difference in the lives of Canadians. From investigating and reporting on disasters, to improving access to data, to engaging Canadians across the country from space, public servants rise to the challenges presented to them daily and make us all proud. Public servants are dedicated people, who care about our country and want to contribute to making it a better place to live. It is public servants who welcome immigrants to start new lives here by deciding on cases of individual applicants.

It is public servants who administer income support programs, such as the Canada pension plan and old age security, and provide approximately 200,000 Canadian seniors with their only source of income. An effective public service is key to getting things done for ordinary working Canadians and their families. This is important. One of the keys to an effective public service is the principle of non-partisanship.

In fact, one of the drivers behind the creation of a non-partisan public service some 100 years ago was the view that the public service had become inefficient and ineffective because it was largely staffed on a partisan basis. As a result, public servants often lacked the necessary qualifications for their positions. Furthermore, a century ago the appointment of public servants for partisan reasons was blamed for swelling the ranks of the public service.

It is therefore essential to the success of the public service that its reputation and tradition of impartiality be maintained and protected, which is why this bill is so welcomed. In budget 2013, the government committed to review and update public service processes and systems to ensure that the public service continues to serve all Canadians well. This bill is consistent with that commitment. It recognizes that while non-partisanship is expected of all public servants, agents of Parliament play a particularly important role in government oversight.

Agents of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute and report directly to Parliament. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament and report to both chambers, usually through the Speakers. Given the close relationship between parliamentarians, agents of Parliament, and their employees, it is vital that they carry out their duties free from political interference, and that they remain independent of all political affiliations.

Furthermore, given the high level of visibility of these offices, it is vital that their work be approached in a non-partisan way to maintain the confidence of parliamentarians and Canadians. To that end, this bill would require every person who applies for a position in an office of an agent of Parliament to make a declaration about their past engagements in politically partisan positions. This declaration would state whether in the last 10 years before applying for that position the person occupied certain specified politically partisan positions.

The declarations would be posted on the website of the office of the relevant agent of Parliament. As well, the bill would require persons who work in these offices to provide a written undertaking that they will conduct themselves in a non-partisan manner in fulfilling the official duties and responsibilities of their positions.

(1120) I am pleased to report that the bill was subject to a thorough examination by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee heard from a number of witnesses and has recommended a number of amendments. In particular, I would like to highlight the following amendment, which is that agents of Parliament would no longer be required to conduct an examination of alleged partisan conduct and that they would therefore no longer be required to report to Parliament on such examinations. In sum, the bill as it now stands provides enhanced accountability and transparency.

It gives parliamentarians the confidence they need that the conduct of those who work in the offices of agents of Parliament is impartial. As stated in the bill itself, it would help to avoid potential conflicts that are likely to arise or be perceived to arise between partisan activities and the official duties and responsibilities of an agent of Parliament or any person who works in the office of an agent of Parliament. I therefore call on all members to join me in supporting Bill C-520 . Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and address Bill C-520 today.

I have a few things that I would like to get on the record. I would challenge the member and the Conservative Party as to why they have felt it necessary to bring forward the bill. As has been illustrated by the New Democratic speaker, the current government has not been a friend to our agents of Parliament, and I think we could come up with a number of examples which would clearly demonstrate that. Canadians should be concerned regarding the general attitude that the Conservative Party majority has towards agents of Parliament.

I think we have witnessed over the last few years an abuse of government power in using that majority to quite often override what our agents of Parliament have been trying to address in the best interest of Canadians. There are a number of thoughts that come to mind, but first I will highlight what this particular bill is about. The proposed legislation would do nothing to deal with the elaborate and partisan appointments of the current government. I think that is important to recognize because it is a real problem that the current Conservative government has.

Also, the legislation is an underhanded attack on the agents of Parliament and the people who work in the offices of the agents. The agents of Parliament are reputable individuals, and their personal work and life experiences are communicated and understood during the interview process. This is why I ask why we have the proposed legislation before us today. Is it necessary, given the important issues out there that we all have to face? We just came back after a summer of being with our constituents.

I am sure that members of Parliament worked very hard during the summer in trying to get a good sense of the issues that are impacting their constituents. However, I suspect that no one would have raised the issue that is before us in the bill. Therefore, I question the motivation that the member has in bringing forward the bill. I have a great deal of respect for the role that our parliamentary officers play on many critically important issues. A couple of years ago, our Parliamentary Budget Officer provided comment on the old age supplement.

The Prime Minister was overseas at the time, when he dropped the bombshell that the government wanted to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67, which is something that the Liberal Party has been very clearly opposed to. We believe the government was wrong in changing the age of retirement for OAS from 65 to 67. It was a bad move. We had the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer in essence indicate that Canada could afford to continue on with the age of 65.

However, if we listened to what the government was saying, we heard there was some sort of a crisis situation and if it was not increased to 67 from 65 our system would fall apart. We in the Liberal Party knew that was not the case, and we had our Parliamentary Budget Officer indicate that the Liberal Party was correct and that there was no crisis. That was a couple of years ago, but just this last session members will remember the issue with the Chief Electoral Officer.

(1125) Elections Canada is an institution respected around the world as an organization of immense credibility that is not partisan. I sat through hours of debate and public consultations, where time after time the Conservative government went against this institution, even when we had the Chief Electoral Officer and previous electoral officers before us saying that the actions taken within that legislation were wrong and that the government was making serious mistakes by forcing through the so-called Fair Elections Act, which is far from what that legislation is actually doing. What did we have at the time?

We had a verbal attack against one of our agents of Parliament, one of the offices that are highly apolitical because they do get engaged in partisanship. The government went after that agency. It went after the Chief Electoral Officer himself, imputing all sorts of motives in an attempt to get what it wanted.

Whether it is the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, these are very important agents of our parliamentary system. They have a very important role to play in Canadian society. It is one of the ways in which all parliamentarians, whether they are on government benches or on opposition benches, are engaged.

We often turn to the Auditor General of Canada for clarification on important issues. How many times have we had the Auditor General of Canada get engaged with the F-35 contract, the hundreds of millions of tax dollars, actually billions of dollars, when it comes to the F-35 and the debacle that has taken place? We have turned to our Auditor General to try to get a better understanding of those important issues that need to be reported on in an apolitical fashion. Every year we get reports that highlight inefficiencies and problems the government has not been able to address.

Quite often there will be a series of recommendations brought forward, and not just from the Auditor General of Canada but from other agents of Parliament. They are there to improve the system and to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency. Liberal governments in the past acted on the many different recommendations brought forward from these independent agencies. The government has received numerous reports, numerous recommendations, on everything from the F-35 to the fairness of elections, and it has really done very little, if anything.

The government has failed to address those very important issues Canadians want it to address.

(1130) Instead, the government has brought forward the piece of legislation before us today, which calls its motivation into question. Why is it this, of all things? If we want to do something-- The Deputy Speaker : Order. Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I would like to welcome back all hon. members. I want to take a moment to highlight some of the foolishness from the speaker we just heard. He talked about Canada.

When we talk about Canada right now, we have to talk about a country that is leading the world in terms of job creation. We have to talk about a country that has reduced taxes to the average Canadian family by $3,200. There is $3,200 more in their pockets. We have economic growth that is leading the world. As parliamentarians, I, like many of my colleagues, have had the opportunity to travel. As I have travelled abroad to a number of places during my time in office, I have yet to have found one parliamentarian from another legislature who would not trade places with Canada's position right now.

The hon. member might want to think about that. One of the realities is that the government obviously does not do that alone. It does that with the co-operation of the professional public service. The member talked about the respect his party has for institutions. The Liberal government was so corrupt when it was tossed out that the first thing our government and our Prime Minister brought in when we came to office was the Federal Accountability Act.

It was actually this government and this Prime Minister that brought in the Accountability Act, that brought in the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that brought in the Commissioner of Lobbying, that brought in some of the institutions to address the years of corruption and inactivity and the lack of respect for our institutions that was brought on by the Liberals. I want to commend the member for York Centre for bringing this legislation forward. He highlighted something he feels is an important mechanism to improve accountability and transparency in the system.

As he highlighted, we have if not the best then one of the best public services in the entire world. When I look back at what we were able to achieve through Canada's economic action plan and the speed by which we were able to deliver that, I know that it was done with the assistance of our extraordinary public service. We could not have done that if we did not have one of the best public services in the world.

What we have seen is that Canada has led the way in coming out of the global recession and has become a model that other nations look to when they look to bring forward stimulus packages to improve their economies. The member for York Centre has brought forward a bill after consulting broadly and with a number of people in his riding. He has brought forward a bill that seeks to improve transparency in the public service. Canada is a great place, in part because we have a non-partisan public service. It is a fundamental principle that has helped make Canada the great nation it is.

However, we also know that there are a number of talented, extraordinary people within the public service who want to serve in a different capacity. Although they are happy and have done great things within the public service, they perhaps want to move into a different realm and perhaps participate by being elected to the House of Commons, provincial legislatures, or municipal councils. They choose to serve their nation or their provinces or communities in a different way.

Having seen that and understanding the need for continuing to have a non-partisan, open, and transparent public service, the member brought forward a bill that would help to protect the officials who work in the offices of agents of Parliament. As the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for York Centre have said, we had this legislation in front of our committee. It was a model of how a committee should work when looking at a private member's bill. It was also a testament to the member for York Centre.

After consulting and hearing the depositions in front of the committee, the member himself brought forward a number of reasoned amendments to reflect the fact that the point of the bill was to protect those people within the offices of agents of Parliament, to improve transparency, and to continue to build on what Canadians have come to regard as the best public service in the world. The member brought forward these amendments so that we could review them as a committee.

(1135) We spent a lot of time debating the amendments to the bill. Obviously we did not all agree. We did not all agree on either the bill or the amendments that were brought forward. A lot of time was spent debating them, and as members can see, there is some disagreement in the House with respect to the contents of the bill. However, by and large, it worked as Canadians would expect it to work. A private member brought forward a bill that he thought was important that would improve the public service.

He thought it was important to his constituents and that it would provide protection to those people in the public service who want to serve in different capacities, either in this House or in provincial legislatures. He brought forward the bill to provide that protection. When the member for York Centre heard from witnesses and they asked for amendments to be made to make the bill better, those amendments were brought forward and debated at committee. Ultimately, they were brought forward to the House, where we are debating them today.

I would ask the members, as they are reviewing this bill, to put it in context and for just a moment to put partisan rhetoric aside and look at what the bill seeks to accomplish. When the Auditor General of Canada came before the committee, he laid on the table some of the areas he was very concerned about. He talked about investigations and reporting back to Parliament and the fact that he was uncomfortable with that. By and large, we heard that from some of the other agents of Parliament, too.

As the committee worked through it, and as it sought to investigate how this would work, it decided that it was probably not something that would be an effective tool for transparency in the public service. It was not being looked upon in the spirit in which it was brought forward, so the hon. member decided to withdraw that provision from the bill. Just to sum up, this is a very good bill. It is aimed at protecting our public servants. It is aimed at giving them an opportunity to serve in different capacities.

It would actually build on the legislation and the rules that are already in place in the broader public sector to ensure that we continue to have a non-partisan, effective public service. I commend the member for York Centre not only for bringing forward this bill but for doing all the work that needed to be done to modify and amend the bill and to gain the support of individuals who had at one point come before the committee with a different opinion.

I suspect now that when people look at this, they will be confident that what they see is the right approach and they will be confident that this bill will do what it is supposed to do, which is protect our public service while guaranteeing a non-partisan public service for many years to come. Unlike my friends in the opposition, let me close by saying how proud of I am of this country. I have had the opportunity to serve since 2008. When it comes to where Canada has been and where it is going, I cannot tell members how excited I am about where Canada is going.

When I look at our job creation and the economic opportunities Canadians have that they did not have before, and when I look at the leadership the Prime Minister is showing on the international stage, I know that Canada is safe. I know that Canada is secure. I know that the opportunities in the job market for our youth are expanding. I, unlike the opposition, am very confident about where Canada is going and what we have done. I look forward to many more years of helping this great country become even better. Unlike the opposition, I do not look down on this country.

I always look forward, and I hope that the opposition will finally join with us in helping to build a bigger, better, stronger, and safer Canada. (1140) [ Translation ] Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous privilege and honour for me to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the people of Pontiac, which is certainly one of the most beautiful ridings in the country. Like my colleagues, I was fortunate enough to visit every part of my riding and to listen to my constituents.

People everywhere, whether in Maniwaki, Rapides-des-Joachims, Masson-Angers or Buckingham, shared their views, which has re-energized me and given me the boost I needed to represent them here, an honour that I am quite happy to accept. Of course, they also shared their concerns with me. Many active and retired public servants live in my riding. Given that it is not far from Ottawa, many people follow federal politics closely and have concerns about democracy.

They have seen the government put more and more power into the hands of the executive branch in a partisan manner. (1145) [ English ] This is what is so ironic about the bill. It is a blind, really. It speaks about dealing with partisanship but it does the opposite. One thing we have to fundamentally recognize about the Westminster system is that it is a partisan system. The partisanship goes from the very base all the way to the top. Therefore, I ask this fundamental question: Who is going to judge partisanship in the bill? The only logical answer to that question is the government.

Therefore, we have to be careful with the very definition of partisanship. We are not talking about an arm's length judgment of the agents of Parliament or of the public service. We are talking about a government, which has proven itself highly partisan, giving itself the tools to basically go forward with a witch hunt across the public service. This ill-conceived, badly written piece of legislation is actually redundant. Somehow, over there on those benches they forgot that there is an entire

article in the Public Service Employment Act,

part 7, which very clearly defines for the public service what a partisan activity is. That definition applies to employees of agents of Parliament and the public service at large. In fact, as a public servant before becoming an elected official, I myself had to abide by that

article very closely. If they happened to take the time to read it and actually look at its details, they would have seen that the bill proposes redundancies. One might think that we are being partisan in saying that, and that it is the NDP's opinion. In fact, it is an opinion shared by experts and by the commissioners themselves. It is important to put on record what the commissioners actually think about the bill.

The information commissioner said that it is: Difficult to understand the need for the Bill; or what problem it is attempting to resolve Although the stated purpose is to avoid conflicts related to “partisan activities” that term is not defined or mentioned in the Bill Creates an environment that may hinder the independence and the execution of the mandate of the [Office of the Information Commissioner].

I will continue with a quote from no less a person than the Auditor General, Mr. Ferguson. He said: ...I think the way it is drafted now, there are some irritants in it that really aren't necessary and wouldn't help our independence. It won't affect the way we define these types of activities or the way we manage conflict of interest. But I think, as I've said before, it raises some [important] questions.... It does raise some important questions and I will give that to the government. The problem is that it does not answer them. When it does answer them, it answers in vagaries. Why would it not even define the term "partisanship" in the legislation? There is a clear definition of that in

part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, so why make it even more difficult to judge the partisanship of a public servant or partisan activities if it were not to open the door to what would be political interference? I do not have to tell my colleagues on this side of the bench. We have seen that political interference time and time again. We saw it recently with an ATIP request. If the government truly believed in transparency and in non-partisanship in the public service, why did some of its staff get involved in an ATIP request?

Access to information is one of the fundamental ways for our democracy to get access to information that is owned by Canadian citizens. Time and time again the government has used the cabinet confidentiality clause in order to get around revealing sensitive information to Canadians. What I would also bring up is that only one session was given to the study of this bill, one session for something so fundamental it affects the independence of the agents of Parliament.

When it comes to the supposed independence of the public service, the government has also shown, in giving new guidelines for the use of social media by the public service, by the way it is dealing with sick leave in the pre-negotiations of the collective agreements, how it has hidden its intentions with regard to a number of matters when dealing with the public service, and not just the fundamental lack of respect that has been shown time and time again by the President of the Treasury Board to our public service. I can understand why Canadians are skeptical about the bill.

I can understand why my own constituents are. Fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves before drafting legislation whether or not there are already existing rules in place that do the same job. This is an issue of sound management and as legislators it is just part of our homework. The fundamental homework on the bill was not done. Obviously, the question that one can ask is: why? I particularly have some doubts about whether or not this bill was cooked up in the PMO's office to deal with people who have an independent voice like Kevin Page and Marc Mayrand.

The government has even taken on the Supreme Court, one of the highest, highly-respected, if not most respected institutions in our country. As democrats and as Canadians, we have to worry when a government tries to slip in these types of rules through no less than a private member's bill. If the government really wants to muzzle our independent agents of Parliament, it should just come out and be honest about it and bring out its duct tape and ropes. Instead, time and time again, it smears their names.

If the Parliamentary Budget Officer agrees with it, there is no problem. (1150) [ Translation ] The accolades roll in. [ English ] However, the second that a parliamentary agent says something critical of the government, the entire Conservative machine and the entire media circus that is there to protect an ideology that wants to concentrate power in the hands of the PMO's office are there to dwindle the quality of our democracy. [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all of the members here in the House back to Parliament.

The New Democrats worked hard this summer. They met with their constituents and knocked on a lot of doors to find out about people's priorities. I myself am so glad that I know more about the issues and concerns that matter most to the people of Terrebonne—Blainville. I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-520 . Since I am a member of the committee that studied this bill, I feel confident talking about just how bad it is. I would like to begin by saying that the NDP will always seek to strengthen political impartiality and transparency in Parliament.

The NDP believes that Parliament cannot function well without these values, which underpin its credibility and that of its institutions. My NDP colleagues and I fully embrace the principle of political neutrality and transparency. I also believe that any bill whose purpose is to implement measures based on these principles must be drafted with great care and attention to detail. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Bill C-520 . Not only is it badly written, it is also yet another sorry attempt by the government to cover up its own failures in terms of parliamentary accountability.

Other than the title—which, by the way, is a smokescreen—the content of Bill C-520 is useless, redundant and tinged with malice. Still, Canadians will not be taken in. They are well aware that the true purpose of this bill is to intimidate agents of Parliament, the very people whose mandate is to protect Canadians from the government's abuses. This shows yet again that the Conservatives do not want to be accountable to anyone.They want to do what they want to do when they want to do it, and they could not care less about democracy. With a bill like Bill C-520 , they are not even trying to hide the fact.

This is another sorry example of the Conservatives' way of doing things: a witch hunt targeting those who would bring them into line. The NDP strongly opposes this bill, which is rife with flaws, omissions and sinister motives. We are very proud of our work in committee. We worked hard to force the government to eliminate the worst parts of Bill C-520 . Even so, this bill serves no purpose, and that is what I would like to demonstrate today.

When the hon. member for York Centre appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to defend his bill, he described it as “imperative” and “critical”. Using such an alarming tone suggests that the political neutrality of agents of Parliament is often threatened. That is what my colleague, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay , was trying to find out more about. He asked the member for York Centre whether he had any examples of partisan activities conducted by any of the nine offices of the agents of Parliament who are subject to his bill.

Oddly, the hon. member for York Centre had no concrete examples to provide. Not one. It is odd that Bill C-520 is meant to address a problem that does not exist. Even more strange, or more worrisome, I should say, is that during review in committee we found out that the hon. member for York Centre did not contact any of the nine offices of the agents of Parliament when his bill was being drafted, even though they will be directly affected by the proposed measures in the bill.

If the hon. member had bothered to take this more seriously and had held consultations, he would have soon realized that we already have a whole series of laws and codes of ethics governing the offices of agents of Parliament and that those laws and codes impose political neutrality on anyone employed by those offices. For example, most of the offices of agents of Parliament are already regulated by the Public Service Employment Act, the Political Activities Regulations and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.

Other laws are in place to ensure the political neutrality of offices that are not subject to the Public Service Employment Act, such as the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who is appointed under the Parliament of Canada Act. This statute takes political neutrality into account in the appointment process. What is more, the commissioner's office is governed by a code of values and standards of conduct that specifically and thoroughly addresses political activities and neutrality.

A number of other agents of Parliament have their own code of conduct that complements the current legislative regime. As hon. members can see, we already have a host of laws and public policies that ensure the political neutrality of agents of Parliament and their employees.

(1155) The three agents of Parliament who testified before the committee did not provide any examples of a conflict of interest or political partisanship. Their employees are professionals who carry out their official duties in a strictly non-partisan way. Clearly, the current system is working. It is effective and, as a result, Bill C-520 is unnecessary and redundant. It is therefore not surprising that the member for York Centre was unable to provide any examples of partisan actions.

If the government was really serious about its approach and was actually acting in good faith, it would have consulted all of the agents of Parliament and invited all of the agents affected by Bill C-520 to testify in committee. However, it did not do so. In my opinion, that was the least the government could have done. When I read Bill C-520 for the first time, I wondered what the real motives of the member for York Centre were. After all, this bill does not solve a problem; rather, it is a solution that is looking for a problem.

We have to ask ourselves why such a bill is being introduced since, in addition to duplicating systems and creating overlap, Bill C-520 is seriously flawed. Well, I got an answer this past June. Everyone agrees that Bill C-520 is an unfair attack on the agents of Parliament whose duty it is to monitor the Conservatives. We learned from an

article in the National Post that the member for York Centre , the sponsor of this bill, accepted inappropriate donations from lobbyists that he met as part of his work on the Standing Committee on Finance. This type of solicitation violates the guidelines issued by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which prohibit MPs from targeting any organizations or individuals with which they anticipate having official dealings. This is not the first time that this type of thing has happened.

Over the past few months, even Conservative ministers have had to pay back donations that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner deemed inappropriate. Clearly, the current government does not want to be accountable any more than it wants to be monitored. The agents of Parliament are doing an excellent job of protecting us from government abuse, since the Conservatives are being caught with their hands in the cookie jar on a regular basis. Rather than following the rules, the Conservatives are seeking to undermine the credibility of those who monitor them by unfairly attacking those individuals.

That is what happened with the former parliamentary budget officer and, more recently, with the Chief Electoral Officer. Bill C-520 is nothing more than a cynical attempt on the part of the Conservatives to make Parliament less accountable to Canadians. It is very worrisome. Canadians deserve a government that respects parliamentary institutions, not one that tries to circumvent the rules and take advantage of the system. I would like to speak to another aspect of this bill that is of great concern to me, namely the privacy rights of employees in the offices of agents of Parliament.

This bill requires anyone who applies for a position with or works in the office of an agent of Parliament to produce a written declaration indicating any partisan positions they have held in the past 10 years. The bill also requires that the declaration be posted on the office's website. In my opinion, these requirements are unnecessary and violate employees' privacy. Everyone knows that the Conservatives do not care about Canadians' privacy. That is blatantly obvious in this case.

Forcing office employees to publicly divulge this type of information could have serious consequences because their work location and political affiliations would be made public. What is more, in 10 years, an employee could have changed affiliations or completely ceased any political involvement. Those kinds of factors could cause employees keep quiet instead of disclosing this information. In addition, they may be concerned about the impact such declarations could have on their career and therefore may be reluctant to disclose anything. Thanks to the NDP's hard work and effort, we avoided the worst.

When this bill was studied in committee, we got the government to back down and forced it to withdraw the most dangerous provisions in the original bill. Unfortunately, the concessions the Conservatives made do very little to assuage our concerns, which are shared by the agents of Parliament. Bill C-520 is still a set of useless provisions that will lead to confusion and make agents of Parliament less independent. The NDP will continue to work to protect the agencies of parliamentary oversight.

Our country deserves better than a selfish, mean-spirited government. (1200) [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will only have two minutes before this stage of the debate ends. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, even if it is only for two minutes, I am glad to join the debate on Bill C-520 because I have watched it with great interest since it was first introduced.

My observation, after listening to the debate from my colleagues and observing the member for York Centre who sponsored the bill, is that the Conservatives' all too evident disrespect for Parliament seems to have made a quantum leap to an out-and-out contempt for Parliament. The bill personifies the attitude that they will systematically undermine and chip away at all of the things that make our Westminster parliamentary system function, and one of those is the independence of members of Parliament.

They undermine and try to bring into disrepute the reputations of some of the most honourable people who uphold the integrity of our parliamentary system. However, we cannot really blame the member for York Centre for this. We all know this is not a private member's bill. In fact, the Conservatives use their private members' bills in the cheapest way possible as a way to avoid the scrutiny and oversight that government bills actually receive. We know that 25 out of 30 of the so-called crime bills put forward by the Conservative Party were put forward as private members' bills.

The Prime Minister 's Office writes them and finds a willing stooge within the Conservative caucus to sponsor these bills. That way they do not go through the same legislative and constitutionality checks to ensure these bills do not offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They get all the media advantage without any of the scrutiny and oversight that are supposed to take place on bills. I wish the member for York Centre had done one thing. He had a last opportunity in this second hour of debate to apologize to the officers of Parliament whose reputations he undermined and made accusations about.

Somebody has to tell Conservatives that the truth does not have a liberal bias. Their xenophobia, their paranoia is that those people who make detrimental comments about anything they do are somehow now enemies of the state and they have the rug pulled out from under them and their reputations tarnished. That is offensive to me. The member for York Centre could have used this opportunity to apologize. This is one of the things that parties do to floor-crossers. They have give them a dog of a bill because they do not really trust them anyway.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1205) [ Translation ] Red Tape Reduction Act The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21,

An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-21. Second reading Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to share my time here today with my colleague from Don Valley West and particularly to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. As members are aware, I had the opportunity to chair the Red Tape Reduction Commission several months ago. This bill enshrines in law a very important rule.

Of course I am referring to the one-for-one rule, which entrepreneurs asked for in consultations. What does this rule mean in terms of regulations? It is quite simple: any time one of my cabinet colleagues wishes to introduce a new regulation that affects entrepreneurs and business people, he or she must remove or eliminate another. That is why it is called the one-for-one rule. This will ensure that the administrative burden on businesses does not increase from year to year. This rule has already been in effect for a year here in the government.

It is a pleasure for me to enshrine it in law to ensure that it is always followed and to fulfill our campaign commitment to Canadians. When a minister has to repeal a regulation, he or she must remove a regulation with an administrative burden that is equal to that of the regulation to be implemented. This new regulation must therefore have the same cost of compliance for businesses. Consequently, regulations are assessed so that when the minister wants to implement a new regulation, he or she removes a regulation that carries the same weight for small businesses.

This rule was instituted as a result of the consultations that we, the members of the commission, conducted. In all, 15 round tables were held in 13 different Canadian cities, and they were attended by 189 entrepreneurs or their representatives through their associations. We also received submissions through the Internet. We concluded that business people want less government regulation and a more efficient government that does not treat people like children by holding their hands their whole life.

They want a government that respects individuals' freedom and responsibility and that treats Canadians and entrepreneurs like free and responsible people. Canadians are responsible and they know that they must obey Canada's laws. However, we must eliminate redundant regulations that affect the profitability of businesses. That is why we have introduced the one-for-one rule. People who appeared before the commission told us that government regulations have an impact on their companies' bottom line. We all know that time is money.

In a small business with less than 10 employees, filling out a form required by the state means that they are not doing what they do best, that is, working for themselves, creating jobs and being more productive. That is why this rule is in the bill and will be enshrined in law so as to ensure that the administrative burden on businesses does not increase. During our consultations, we identified more than 2,300 clear and specific irritants.

I invite members and Canadians to have a look at the Red Tape Reduction Commission's report, which provides a list of irritants specific to various federal government departments. There were more than 2,300—

(1210) The Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle on a point of order.

Mr. Marc-André Morin : Mr. Speaker, I do not see how this in any way relates to the bill we are discussing. The Deputy Speaker : I think it is in order. The minister of state may continue. Hon. Maxime Bernier : Mr. Speaker, I was saying that these 2,300 irritants identified by the commission, with the support and the vigilance of Canadians, have been eliminated. As I said earlier, this rule was put in place in April 2012. It will now be legislated. I would also like to inform the House that as of June 16, 2014, the reduction in administration burden under the rule was valued at more than $20 million.

That is $20 million in net savings for Canadian business owners. How did we manage these savings and ensure that Canadian business owners would benefit from them? We did so by reducing and abolishing 19 regulations at the federal level. We made the regulations much simpler and easier to understand, and we ensured that the rules were written in more accessible language. I remind members that in budget 2007, we committed to reducing the overall paper burden on businesses by 20%. I have good news about that. Our government fulfilled this commitment in March 2009.

We have eliminated some 80,000 regulatory requirements and obligations. The effect has been quite simple: business owners now have more time to focus on creating wealth and jobs in Canada. One example of these unnecessary regulations that were imposed by departments and that we abolished came from the Canada Revenue Agency. The agency has many regulations, especially for entrepreneurs. We identified more than 8,000 obsolete forms, filings and obligations that the agency required from entrepreneurs and Canadians. We simply abolished them.

Now we know that when the agency is dealing with Canadians, it is treating them the way it treats every other commercial enterprise. That is to say that when an individual sends a written request to the agency about the

interpretation of a regulation or a law, that person will receive a written response from the agency. In that way, the agency is serving Canadians better. When entrepreneurs have a question about how to interpret a tax law or regulation, they can simply write to the agency and it will respond within a reasonable time frame. It seems quite simple, but these are the sorts of things that were not done before at the agency and that are done now. It means that entrepreneurs can know in advance how the agency interprets a regulation so that they can legitimately comply with it.

We also ensured that companies can now submit more than 1,200 electronic records of employment at the same time. That was a request from the associations that represent the majority of Canada's entrepreneurs. We made it happen. In the 2011 throne speech, we also committed to reducing red tape. That commitment is reflected in the fact that the agency is now listening to the public and entrepreneurs and is responding to requests from Canadians in a timely manner. There are many other initiatives that we have taken within the government to reduce red tape.

I would like to point out that Canadians can now obtain a passport that is valid for 10 years instead of only five. That, too, will reduce red tape. I am proud to have been able to speak to this bill, since I worked with my government colleagues to develop the bill as it now stands. It addresses the concerns of entrepreneurs. I am pleased that the one-for-one rule will be enshrined in law.

(1215) Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture 's speech. I have also listened to a lot of merchants and small and medium-sized business owners in my riding. I really pay attention to the people in my riding who have something to say about small and medium-sized businesses. These people are not seeing a lot of encouraging signs from the government. The NDP put forward a number of proposals about the credit card fees imposed on small and medium-sized businesses.

Since the minister is here to answer my question, I would like to ask him why the Conservatives do not support measures to regulate credit card fees, particularly the fees that small merchants and small and medium-sized businesses have to pay. Hon. Maxime Bernier : Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have not been talking to the same business people. As the member for Beauce, I am lucky to be surrounded by SMEs. Many of the business people in Beauce are happy with our government's measures to foster freedom, which includes economic freedom and, of course, individual responsibility.

When people are free to make their dreams come true, they can create wealth. That is what is happening in Beauce and all over Canada. That being said, there is certainly a very heavy administrative burden on small businesses, and that is because of the three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Perhaps people in the member's riding have talked to her about provincial and municipal government regulations.

The federal government, however, has done its part, and I urge my colleagues in other provinces to do the same and reduce the administrative burden they place on business people. [ English ] Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this initiative began seven years ago, in 2007. In the time between then and now, could the minister inform the House whether there has been a deliberate and conscientious effort on the part of the government to remove existing redundant regulation? The minister referred to a mass of unnecessary regulation and burden that was pre-existing in the system.

Could he report to the House that all redundant and unnecessary regulation has now been effectively removed from the Canadian regulatory system? (1220) [ Translation ] Hon. Maxime Bernier : Mr. Speaker, I said earlier in my speech that 2,300 irritants that were affecting entrepreneurs have been eliminated, as these were measures that were no longer needed. This will give us a more effective regulatory framework. Canada has been a country since 1867, and some legislation contains outdated regulations. We will continue to examine those outdated regulations and eliminate them.

That is why we are studying this bill and the one-for-one rule here today. It is important to eliminate the outdated regulations as new ones are introduced. Treasury Board does this kind of work every day, and we will continue to do it in order to ensure that Canada will always have an effective regulatory system in place, without any unnecessary regulations. [ English ] Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism and the President of the Treasury Board for their hard work on this.

I have been on the treasury board for five or six years now and I have seen first-hand that these ministers, and other colleagues, really have worked hard to get rid of red tape. Could the minister explain why the red tape reduction is important and how it would fit into the government's overall plan to create jobs, wealth and prosperity for Canadians? Hon. Maxime Bernier : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sit with my colleague on Treasury Board. We are all working hard to ensure that entrepreneurs can do what they do best, which is create jobs and wealth in our country.

As a government it is very simple: it is more economic freedom. If people are free to realize their dreams, they will be able to do what they want to do and, at the same time, create jobs and wealth in the country. It is not a big fat government that creates jobs; it is the entrepreneurs. To allow entrepreneurs to do what they do best, this legislation is important. Now we will reduce the burden and abolish the red tape so entrepreneurs can do what they do best, and that is great news. That is the language of our free trade agenda, our low-tax agenda, and our red tape agenda.

I am very pleased today that we have the opportunity to vote on this excellent bill. Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak on the importance of the government's one-for-one rule. I want to thank the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture for sharing his time with me on this important legislation, which we are seeking to enshrine in law through this bill today. For anyone not familiar with it, the one-for-one rule places strict controls on the growth of regulatory red tape on businesses.

The one-for-one rule is part of a package of system-wide reforms to Canada's federal regulatory system that we promised to implement when we released our action plan in October 2012. Actually, the one-for-one rule came into effect earlier than our action plan; it came into effect on April 1, 2012. As the President of the Treasury Board said when announcing the one-for-one legislation, this rule is helping to create the conditions for economic growth by increasing Canadian competitiveness and reducing roadblocks to business innovation.

I would add that the legislation before us will make these conditions the law of the land. I will take a moment to describe how the one-for-one rule came about. As members may recall, in economic action plan 2010, our government committed to reducing regulatory red tape in order to improve the ability of businesses and entrepreneurs to respond to emerging growth opportunities and create jobs. To do this, we created the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which was chaired by the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture . The commission's mandate was twofold.

First, it was to identify irritants to business that stem from federal regulatory requirements and review how those requirements are administered to reduce the compliance burden on businesses, especially small business. The focus, incidentally, was to be on irritants that have a clear detrimental effect to growth, competitiveness, and innovation. Second, it was to recommend options that address the irritants, and control and reduce the compliance burden on a long-term basis.

The commission held consultations with businesses and Canadians, both in person and online, to hear their concerns with excessive red tape and how it was hampering their business. Their very consultations took place in ridings and constituencies across this country, including one in my own constituency of Don Valley West. As a result of these consultations, the commission recommended a combination of system-wide reforms and targeted actions. The one-for-one rule is one of the reforms that came out of that process.

As I mentioned, it controls the cost of the administrative burden borne by businesses, particularly small businesses, and it does it in two ways. First, under the one-for-one rule, regulators have 24 months to offset any increase in the cost of the administrative burden resulting from a regulatory change with an equal cost reduction from existing regulations. Second, it requires that a regulation be taken off the books whenever a new regulation that adds an administrative burden cost is introduced.

In this way, the rule controls both the cost of the administrative burden and the actual number of regulations that businesses have to deal with. It works. During its first year of implementation, the one-for-one rule provided a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape impacting businesses. What is more, as of June 16, 2014, under the one-for-one rule, the government had reduced administrative burden by over $20 million and achieved a net reduction of 19 regulations. We are confident that that trend towards savings will continue, and in fact it must continue.

Let me give a real-life example of the one-for-one rule in action. Last January, we announced a proposal to change the Food and Drug Regulations to allow regulated pharmacy technicians to oversee the transfer of prescriptions from one pharmacy to another, a task formerly restricted to pharmacists alone, and to complete associated paperwork. Pharmacists can now spend more time providing advice to and serving customers, and less time at their desks doing paperwork.

(1225) As a result, pharmacies across Canada will start to reduce their administrative burdens this year, resulting in annual savings of some $15 million by 2018. Another reform we have made has lifted the threshold of corporations reporting financial and ownership information under the Corporations Returns Act. As a result, more than 32,000 businesses no longer need to file a complex government return. This change is expected to reduce the administrative burden by about $1.2 million a year. The one-for-one rule and our other red tape reduction efforts are bearing fruit.

They are increasing Canadian competitiveness, freeing businesses to innovate, invest, grow, and create jobs, and enhancing Canada's reputation as one of the best places in the world in which to do business and to invest. In fact, in Bloomberg's most recent ranking of the best countries in the world for doing business, Canada placed second, just behind Hong Kong and ahead of the United States. By following through on our action plan commitments, our government is doing the hard work required to cement this reputation.

Our top priority is to create economic growth and jobs in Canada, and one of the most important ways we can do this is by maintaining high productivity. According to Statistics Canada, in 2004, gross domestic product per person in Canada was almost 300% higher than in 1961, with labour productivity accounting for 80% of that remarkable increase. It is a key responsibility of government to set the conditions in which this productivity can continue to grow. Every effort must be made to increase the competitiveness of our firms and enable them to compete for markets.

That is why reforming our federal regulatory system with measures like the one-for-one rule is crucial. It is the way to create the right climate for small businesses to grow and succeed in Canada, particularly in a time of global economic uncertainty. It is the way forward. What is more, it comes on top of a series of measures we have taken to help businesses thrive. We have gone from one of the highest marginal effective tax rates on business to among the lowest. We have lowered taxes 150 times since taking office, reducing taxes for Canadian businesses from 22% in 2007, to 15% in 2012.

As a result, Canada today has the confidence of the world's investors. We intend to keep that confidence level high with measures like this one-for-one rule legislation, which shows Canada is serious about competing with the rest of the world. Enshrining the one-for-one rule in law shows how much we believe in Canadians. We know our people can compete with the best in the world when they are not stifled with unnecessary bureaucratic red tape.

That is why we are showing our faith in Canadians by giving the one-for-one rule the force of law, and that is why I am asking the hon. members of this House to vote for this legislation and vote for Canadians. (1230) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his speech and I would like to welcome everyone back to the House. Personally, I am very happy to be back. This debate shows, once again, that the Conservatives are all talk and no action.

Over the past three and a half years that I have been here, I have had the opportunity to speak with many entrepreneurs and business leaders in various sectors. When it comes to red tape, bureaucracy and problems regarding what approach to take, the government's record is the exact opposite of what it advocates in this bill, which is evident in the employment insurance file. There the government has definitely increased the burden, which is causing a lot of problems for small businesses. How can my colleague justify supporting this bill, while showing such a laissez-faire attitude on other issues? [ English ] Mr.

John Carmichael : Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the member back as well. I hope everybody has had a wonderful summer and that we are ready to get back to work. Clearly, this bill is good work for the House. We had good news on EI last week, and I hope the member was able to hear that news. More importantly, on this issue today, I want to read a quote that is relevant. It is by Laura Jones, who is the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She stated: CFIB has always said, if it matters, measure it.

The federal government continues to be a leader in fighting red tape, particularly when it comes to measuring, cutting, and publicly reporting on the burden being shouldered by small business. I come from a business background, and I understand regulatory and bureaucratic red tape. I can confirm that by removing, on a one-for-one basis, burdensome regulation in favour of new, more refined, and more productive regulation, it is the right direction for this government to go. I look forward to the House supporting this later today.

(1235) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in terms of economic growth into the future and how it could positively impact the middle class, one thing we need to recognize is the vital role that small businesses play. I would suggest it is the backbone of our economy. There are things we could be doing, and looking at ways to reduce red tape is a very strong positive. I have a question for the member.

To what degree does he believe that the government has any role in looking at ways to get rid of some of the red tape for other jurisdictions, such as federal regulations, provincial regulations, municipal regulations? Is there a role for the federal government, from his perspective? Mr. John Carmichael : Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a role, but today we are talking about the one-for-one rule. The purpose of this legislation is to remove the burdensome regulation that is crowding small businesses in their ability to compete on the world stage.

We support free trade and we look at the opportunities internationally. Regulations are required internally in this country, whether provincially or federally, and this government has a role to play in that. Therefore we must absolutely play a role, but, more importantly, we must remove the hurdles that stifle small and medium-sized businesses in their ability to compete and secure business on the global stage. This legislation plays an important

part in helping us to achieve that, and I hope the member will support it. Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today. I want to welcome back my colleagues on all sides of the House. We have important work to get to and I am looking forward to starting that important work with our discussion today on Bill C-21 .

As the NDP critic for small business, government imposed red tape and the paper burden faced by Canada's entrepreneurs remains one of the primary concerns raised with me by business owners as I continue to consult with them on how government can create the conditions for them to grow their businesses and create jobs from coast to coast to coast. Whether it is the local bakery or the flower shop, small and medium-sized businesses are the heart of our local economies and the backbone of thriving, prosperous communities.

It is these small business owners who create jobs, employ our neighbours, and support our charities. I can speak to that truthfully as I ran the United Way in Sudbury before I was elected in 2008. It was the small and medium-sized business owners who came out to support our charities and support the United Way, and so many of them across our communities.

That is why it is so important that the government do all it can to support the growth of small businesses and why New Democrats support common sense solutions to reduce the paper burden and the compliance costs small businesses face when dealing with the government. New Democrats believe in reducing the paper burden and implementing solutions that would have the potential to eliminate red tape for businesses. Young entrepreneurs and family businesses are key to a prosperous economic future for Canada. We need to ensure they are using their time as efficiently as possible.

The goal of reducing the paper burden for job creators is laudable. According to a report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, various forms of regulatory requirements spread across all levels of government cost business owners an estimated $30 billion a year in time and money. This particularly concerns small and medium-sized businesses because the annual cost of regulation per employee is highest for enterprises with less than five employees. I think of all of the businesses in my riding, many of them are what we call the businesses on Main Street. These businesses are doing great work.

They start at seven o'clock in the morning and finish at nine or ten o'clock at night. They have five or less employees. However, these businesses lack the financial capacity to hire someone dedicated to regulatory compliance. Therefore, these costs often are internalized as lost opportunity costs because it is the small business owners themselves who are faced with the daunting task of filling out the piles of paperwork that a business is obligated to file.

With that being said, while we are happy to work with Canada's entrepreneurs to make their interaction with government as simple and cost-effective as possible, New Democrats also believe regulations that are in the public interest should be maintained. It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations on the books but of determining which regulations are working for Canadians and which are not. It seems like common sense. Most importantly, government regulations that protect health, safety, and the environment of Canadians should be a priority.

Unfortunately, the bill only pays lip service to that obligation. In fact, only in the

preamble to the bill does it state that the enactment would not apply to regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians. Even more worrisome, there is no mention of the word “environment”. The

preamble states, “Whereas the one-for-one rule must not compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy”. There is absolutely no mention in the bill of the environment. An hon. member: That speaks volumes. Mr. Glenn Thibeault: It does, Mr. Speaker. New Democrats are not alone in expressing our concerns about this impact. As I said, it is worrisome that there is no mention of the word “environment”. It is also reprehensible. New Democrats will specifically seek to address this in an amendment during the committee stage of the bill's proceedings. We have some validators on this.

Robyn Benson, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, has underscored the importance of ensuring the proper enforcement of health and safety regulations, stating that “Regulations, and their proper enforcement, can literally save lives. But sometimes only a horrific mishap will make the point.” Unfortunately, we recently had a very stark reminder of what can happen when deregulation runs amok with the tragic incident at Lac-Mégantic last summer.

(1240) The labour movement is not alone in underscoring the importance of regulations that protect the health, safety, and environment of Canadians within the context of the bill. In the lead-up to the introduction of Bill C-21 , Laura Jones, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who has been quoted numerous times by the other side, stated that rules that are necessary to protect health, promote safety, and protect the environment are important and should not be classified under the definition of red tape.

What is most concerning about this sloganistic approach to easing the paper burden on small business is that the Conservative and Liberal track records from the past when it comes to safeguarding regulations and standards that protect the health and safety of Canadians have been abysmal. As I mentioned earlier, the tragedy in Quebec has put rail safety in Canada back in the spotlight after decades of deregulation by the Liberals and then Conservatives.

Largely, this descent into deregulation can be traced back to 1999 when the Liberals further deregulated rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach adopted by Mulroney's Conservative government. This approach has allowed rail companies to self-regulate rather than requiring them to adhere to operational safety standards jointly established by government and the industry.

Unfortunately, we have seen a shocking example of how unchecked deregulation can cut short the lives of dozens of individuals and reek havoc on an entire town in what seemed like the blink of an eye but was really the result of a slow march toward a dangerous self-regulatory approach. Further, with its October 2014 budget implementation act, Bill C-4 , the Conservatives introduced changes to the labour code that will significantly restrict the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces.

This is yet again an attack on Canadian workers that could have serious consequences for individuals in the workplace. Let me speak briefly as to why the issue of health and safety regulations is so important and why New Democrats believe they should be exempted from the mandate of Bill C-21 . In Canada, over 1,000 people fall victim to workplace accidents every year, while a growing number of Canadians are losing their lives or suffering from work-related illnesses. Regrettably, this number has been going up for the past 15 years.

I think we can all agree in the House that any injury, any death in the workplace, is one too many. Unfortunately, all too often families are left to pick up the pieces when loved ones are suddenly taken away while on the job. No one should ever have to leave their home in the morning wondering whether today is the day they die at work. In our country, three people are killed on the job every working day. Left behind are families and friends devastated by the loss of their loved ones.

Given the sad reality of how tenuous health and safety conditions continue to be for many of Canada's workers, it begs the question: If the Conservatives are really serious about the health and safety of Canadians, why not explicitly exclude regulations that protect health, safety, and the environment from the application of the bill? New Democrats need more than the government's word or the

preamble of a bill, which is subject to

interpretation. We want assurances that the one-for-one rule would not apply to regulations that impact the health, safety, and environment of Canadians. Canada's entrepreneurs are resourceful and innovative by nature. They are well positioned to succeed in the 21st century economy. However, to help them create the jobs we need in Canada, we need to make sure government is providing new entrepreneurs with the services and the supports they need to succeed.

For instance, there are a variety of government services to assist businesses, but as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has pointed out, they are offered by many different governments, different agencies, and different departments. Finding and applying for the right service can also be time consuming, and many small business owners are forced to hire expensive consultants to navigate that bureaucracy. That needs to change. However, Bill C-21 does nothing to address this growing concern.

(1245) One aspect of this issue, which often gets lost in the conversation around the need to reduce the paper burden, is that dramatic cuts to the public service represent an additional layer of red tape for small business owners as they are forced to wait longer for the answers they need to maintain and grow their businesses. New Democrats were staunch opponents to the cuts made by the Conservative government, cuts that have had a major impact not just on our most vulnerable citizens but also on business owners who are placed on hold in what can seem like a never-ending queue.

While the Conservatives like to brand themselves as the party that is open for business, their cuts to front-line public services has left a closed sign hanging in the window of government service delivery during precisely the time when small business owners need a leg-up because of the economic downturn. This has left entrepreneurs out in the cold, not to mention the impact it has had on job recovery in our country. That is why the bill is such a misnomer. On the one hand, the government is using a sloganistic approach to improving the efficiency of government in responding to the needs of our job creators.

Then, on the other hand, it has undermined the ability of the government to deliver services and respond to inquiries from those very same job creators with its reckless public sector cuts. New Democrats believe the government should be focusing on real measures to help small business owners grow their businesses and not just half measures through a self-promotional bill. If the Conservatives truly wanted to help small businesses they would not be dragging their feet when it comes to taking real action to curtail the excessive fees credit card issuers charge merchants. Small businesses are being gouged every day.

On average, they must pay about $200 or more in fees for every $10,000 processed. Despite dismissing a recent case against Visa and Mastercard, in a rare move the Competition Tribunal called for a regulatory framework to deal with anti-competitive practices. So far, the Conservatives are really only paying lip service to the plight of small merchants by finally admitting that action is needed to lower merchant fees. I could talk about the time when I went to the great riding of Winnipeg Centre .

My colleague from that great riding and I went out to talk to small business owners in the Forks, which I think is the name of that great little place that is around there. We had business owners trying to track us down to talk to us about their concerns with respect to how much they are having to spend every year, some of them talking about tens of thousands of dollars, just to be able to accept credit cards, and the credit card fees that they have to pay. Some of them have even said they have had to stop taking them, which is having an effect on their businesses. They said they were not hiring people.

They were not expanding their businesses because of these fees they were having to pay.

(1250) Unlike the Conservatives, the New Democrats have common-sense proposals to help merchants, such as creating an independent government body to crack down on the anti-competitive merchant fees that stifle small businesses. As well, training is important. As a party, we New Democrats know that smaller businesses do not necessarily have the resources to hire human resources managers to identify training opportunities and programs for staff let alone expertise to apply for government training programs.

Training new employees costs time and money, and we sympathize with business owners who do not want to pony up the money to train employees only to have their competitors poach them and reap the rewards of their investment. Canadian business owners need to have the opportunity to have their workforce improved, because we have seen it fall by almost 40% since 1993. We have also called for a youth hiring and training tax credit of up to about $4,000 to reward small and medium-sized enterprises that would give our youth their first chances to have well-paying jobs.

Eligible businesses hiring Canadians between ages 18 and 25 could get up to about $1,000 for hiring a young employee and another $1,000 to match funds for the training of said employee. This tax credit would double in regions of the country where youth unemployment is highest, up to about $2,000 for each component. That is $4,000. In tough regions in the north, such as my riding of Sudbury, we have higher unemployment. I have been talking to many of the small-business owners in my riding, and many are saying that something like this would be a benefit for them.

We have three great post-secondary institutions in my riding putting out great graduates: Collège Boréal, Cambrian College, and Laurentian University. This would actually help those graduates get those great-paying jobs. Again, noting that this bill, in our opinion, is sloganistic, we really need to find other programs that would work to really help small businesses. It is small businesses, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, that are the economic drivers and the heart of our economy. It is the small and medium-sized enterprises. We need access to financing to help small-business owners grow their businesses.

We have a strong start-up culture here in Canada, but entrepreneurs find it hard to access the funds they need to grow their business. New Democrats hear every day from experts and business observers that Canada needs a stronger venture capital market and access to more investors to help entrepreneurs grow their innovative ventures into real successes. Unfortunately, too many promising Canadian start-ups are sold off to U.S. investors before they can reach full maturity, because their owners just cannot access the financing to bring them to the next level.

Budget 2013 increased taxes on small-business-friendly credit unions by over $200 million. That is money the credit unions could be using to continue to invest in our small businesses. The Conservatives are also planning on phasing out their discounted tax treatment for labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which provide a critical source of investment for business owners, especially in Quebec. Looking back at all the things we have been talking about that could be done right now to help small business, we have not seen any action by the current government.

What the Conservatives have done is bring forward this bill that talks about reducing some of the red tape and the paper burden. To conclude, regulations that are in the public interest should be maintained. It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations on the books but of determining which regulations are working for Canadians and which regulations are not working. This is a sound approach. What I am talking about is public administration. By not even mentioning the word “environment” in the

preamble and in this bill causes us great concern on this side of the House. While of course it is important to protect the Canadian economy and important to ensure that there is health and safety, we cannot have any of those three items without protections for the environment. It talks about the air we breathe and the water we drink and the places we reside. We need to ensure that those protections are put in place. While we agree that we want to reduce the administrative burden on small businesses, we really do not have faith that the current Conservative government would do just that.

It has a history of deregulation with no regard for the health and safety of Canadians. As I talked about earlier, there has been example after example of that.

(1255) One of the other things we could do right now is help businesses plan for the next generation in retirement. Entrepreneurs of the baby boomer generation are approaching retirement, and many are unsure of how they will dispose of the businesses they have spent a lifetime building. New Democrats know that entrepreneurs find it difficult to properly value the worth of a business they have poured their hearts and souls into and that finding a buyer who can raise funds to pay the right price can be challenging.

A lifetime capital gains exemption protects business owners when they sell their businesses from paying taxes on capital gains of up to $800,000. These earnings will often be the source of retirement funding for many business owners. Unfortunately, rules in the tax code can make it cost more for business owners to sell their businesses to members of their own families. Talk about red tape. New Democrats think we should make it easier, not harder, for family business owners to pass on their businesses to their kids.

We support examining the tax code to make sure that a business passed from one family member to another has access to the same lifetime capital gains exemption of $800,000 as any other business that is sold. In talking about reducing red tape, we also need to ensure that we are looking at the tax code, something the government has not been talking about. I am very pleased to stand and speak to this issue that is very important to our party. As I mentioned, my party knows that small businesses and medium-sized enterprises are the heart of our economy and are the job creators in this country.

If we can find ways of reducing red tape while protecting our economy, our health and safety, and the environment, that is what New Democrats would propose. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, welcome back, and welcome to everyone in this place. I want to thank the member opposite for his speech today. Obviously he spent some time discussing small business with his constituents and hopefully with others, which is a good thing. What I question is whether he has studied the bill.

This is about administrative compliance: the time, the planning, the effort it takes to demonstrate compliance with government regulation. There is nothing in the one-for-one rule or in this piece of legislation that would compromise health, safety, or the environment for Canadians. It is a curious pattern. The NDP continue to advocate that it is behind small business, but when we brought in temporary hiring credits for small business, its members opposed them. When we brought forward lifetime capital gains, which the member spoke about, we increased it, and they opposed it.

When we indexed it last year, they opposed it. As to introducing measures such as a mandatory minimum wage, federally, of $15, I wonder if the member has consulted with his constituents and small business across this country, because it sounds to me like the bromides he tries to pass in this place and onto others seem to be far divorced from reality. Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question and welcome him back to Parliament as well. I find it very interesting that I am talking about the

preamble of the bill, where there is mention of protecting the Canadian economy and that we must not compromise public health or public safety, but there is no mention of the environment. There is concern among a majority of Canadians. When we are talking about reality, the Conservatives and my hon. colleague need to speak to Canadians about the importance they place on the environment. When there is nothing in the bill to make sure that we are going to protect the environment, that is very concerning. The member also talked about the hiring credit and the EI change they announced last week.

It was the New Democratic party that took the government to task for cancelling it. All of a sudden, the Conservatives realized that by cancelling it they had made a huge mistake, which impacted small businesses, and then they scrambled to reintroduce something. It is the New Democratic Party that continues to talk to small businesses. It is this party that listens to small businesses and makes sure that we are talking about policies that will actually help them continue to grow.

(1300) Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to this debate, the more I come to the conclusion that the NDP is probably the only real friend small businesses have in this country. People should be judged by what they do, not by what they say. I am proud to say that in my province of Manitoba, we are in our fourth majority government. The small business tax in my province, when we took over in 1999, was 11%. Every year thereafter, we lowered the small business tax by 1% to 10%, 9%, 8%, 7%, and 6%, until now. Now the small business tax in the socialist paradise of Manitoba is 0%.

That is putting our money where our mouth is. If the Conservatives really believe that they want to stimulate small businesses, why are they hitting them with these punitive taxes? The Conservatives cut corporate tax rates religiously every chance they get, to where it is well below the OECD average, but they leave the small business tax at a punitive 11%. The two things the Conservatives have announced recently, including a cutback in EI premiums, are not out of their wallet. They do not put one cent into the EI fund. The EI fund is entirely made up of contributions from employers and employees.

Not one penny comes from the federal government. When it gives a few nickels of that back to small businesses, it is hardly coming out of its pocket. This regulatory proposal the Conservatives are making is not a cost factor either. If they want to put their money where their mouth is, come to us with a dramatic reduction in taxes for small businesses. That is something the NDP has already demonstrated. We support it, and we do it. The Deputy Speaker : I am not sure there was a question in there, but the member for Sudbury has the opportunity to comment. Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr.

Speaker, I heard many questions in there. I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, and I am happy to respond to them. I have been able to work with my hon. colleague for the last six years on many files. Of course, small business is one we have always talked about, especially when it relates to the credit card file. There are so many small businesses in my hon. colleague's riding that he has been very vocal with me about on numerous occasions, because they go to him. He then comes to me, and we work to try to find ways of helping them resolve the issue of the fees they have to pay.

I will not be specific, but when a small-business owner, a restaurant owner, from my colleague's riding comes up to me and says that the business is spending $20,000 a year on fees to credit card companies— Mr. Pat Martin : Good grief. Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, exactly. Good grief. As that person said, they do not expand the business. They do not hire other people, because they have to pay those fees. We have brought this issue to the government numerous times, and what has it come up with? It has come up with a voluntary code of conduct that is full of loopholes. It is absolutely full of loopholes.

The government refuses to address it. The Competition Tribunal went through the whole process and punted it back to this place. It said that we, as parliamentarians, need to make a decision on this. Do members know when that was? That was in July 2013. We have waited over a year, and we still do not see any action. What we see today is that we are going to start looking at one-for-one and we are going to start looking at reducing red tape. We can all agree on that.

Really what we need to agree on is making sure that we are not taking away regulations that are protecting Canadians' health and safety, the economy, and the environment. The Conservatives continue to make cuts to the public service and say that now they have a problem with small business owners, because they keep calling and have to wait in line. Stop cutting the public service so that we can deliver the services that businesses and Canadians need. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the small business critic, for his speech.

I found it quite interesting that 20 minutes was not enough time for him to talk about all the NDP's proposals, when it took the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture only 10 minutes to talk about the government's file on small businesses. I think that is absolutely appalling. I am the critic for co-operatives. Co-operatives are businesses. Over the past few years, this government has eliminated any assistance that was available to these small co-operatives, including start-up programs.

One of the problems small businesses are facing is that the government is not there to ensure they have the right measures and conditions they need to become medium-sized businesses and create even more jobs, prosperity and wealth for Canada. I would like my colleague to say a few words about the government's rather gloomy record when it comes to co-operatives, which are businesses, and also about how difficult it is for small businesses to become medium-sized and large businesses in Canada. (1305) [ English ] Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr.

Speaker, I have had the opportunity as the small business critic to meet with many of the co-operative organizations across the country that want to be more engaged by the government. They want to be active participants. They are active participants in the economy, but they are not perceived or seen by the Conservative government as contributors.

When we talk about proposals for small businesses, such as the youth hiring tax credit, the elimination and reduction of a lot of the merchant fees, ensuring that people can transfer their businesses from family member to family member without having to go through all of the taxes that come with that, the government refuses to listen. We are proposing ideas that will help save small businesses and co-operatives money now and keep the money in their pockets. By doing that, they will reinvest in their businesses and co-operatives and bring more people in together.

I think of Eat Local, which is a great food co-operative in Sudbury. It is getting more and more members now who continue to invest in the business. As they invest in the business, more and more small businesses go into the small business. What happens? We create jobs and we grow the economy. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by welcoming all my colleagues back to the House. I hope this return to Parliament is more productive than previous ones have been. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pontiac .

I have the honour to speak on this first day back to Bill C-21,

An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses . The bill introduced here at second reading stage is a good idea insofar as it claims to cut red tape for SME's. I want to remind hon. members that in April, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that after taxes, red tape was the second biggest concern of small business owners. The one-for-one rule included in this bill tells businesses that every time a new administrative burden is placed on them, another will be lifted. That is a start.

The bill is telling them that the administrative burden will not become greater in future. However, this rule still needs to be applied effectively, fairly and transparently. However, like many of this Conservative government's bills, this one falls short of the mark. Government regulations to protect the health, safety and environment of Canadians should be a priority. This bill seems to completely disregard that obligation. We need more than the government's promises and the

preamble of a bill that could leave room for

interpretation. We want to be assured that deregulation will not apply to these regulations. On the one hand, the government wants to seem co-operative by introducing a bill like this, and on the other hand, its actions show that all it does is keep piling on administrative measures, whether it is through personal income tax measures or through various government programs that never reach their targets. Last of all, this bill provides for a five-year review. This will result in a new administrative burden.

We believe in reducing the paper burden and in sensible solutions, but we need more than half-measures in a gimmicky bill, because small businesses are the drivers of entrepreneurship in our country. However, because of their limited resources, small businesses feel the weight of the administrative burden more than other businesses. This summer, I had the opportunity to meet with the owners of small and medium-sized businesses in the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. If it were also to meet with them, the government would realize that this bill is deficient.

The owners told me that there is a real lack of co-operation among the different levels of government. We know that this Conservative government finds it difficult to get along with its provincial and municipal counterparts. We have seen this from the beginning of its mandate. It is a serious problem. SMEs must sometimes fill out federal and provincial forms. We need an agreement to make things easier. They should not have to fill out the same form twice and send it to different places based on different criteria. Small businesses told me that this is a real waste of time.

They all agree that they have been squeezed by bank charges this year and that their profits have plummeted.

(1310) They sometimes even have to reconsider their decision to go into business. This goes for SMEs that have been in business for several years and those that are just getting started. Banking fees have gotten so high that SMEs have no choice but to take them into account. Today, people no longer pay with cash. It has become common to make small purchases with a debit or credit card. However, such transactions cost money; business owners must pay a percentage. That percentage has a serious impact.

It considerably reduces profit margins and available funds that could have been reinvested in the local economy to hire a new employee or expand a store, for example. The government says that it is prepared to help SMEs, but it does not go far enough. To date, the NDP is the only federal party to propose real solutions to this problem. We proposed regulating the fees that credit card companies charge merchants by creating an ombudsman position. Obviously, the Conservative government rejected this proposal, as usual. Red tape is not the only thing that small business owners come to me about.

They also regularly tell me that the Conservatives boast about helping small businesses, but that they did not renew the hiring credit for small business. It was not even included in budget 2014. However, SMEs have been clear that this hiring credit is important. It allows them to build their businesses and create dependable jobs. SMEs get very little attention from the Conservative government. Perhaps the government needs to be reminded that there is a direct correlation between red tape and the long-term prosperity of these SMEs.

Unnecessary red tape puts a wrench in the smooth flow of trade and limits the exchange of goods and services that is the lifeblood of a healthy economy. However, as we know, this Conservative government would rather give billions of dollars in tax cuts to big businesses than help SMEs, which support our communities. The NDP knows that small business owners work really hard. They create good jobs across the country and we believe that they deserve a break. I support this bill at second reading.

However, measures must be added to improve it and particularly to ensure that it meets the requirements of our entrepreneurs.

(1315) Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her speech. I want to talk about the content of the bill. In clause 2, “administrative burden” is defined as follows: 2. ...“administrative burden” means anything that is necessary to demonstrate compliance with a regulation, including the collecting, processing, reporting and retaining of information and the completing of forms. This shows the huge disconnect between the government's intentions—or so-called intentions—and reality.

My colleague was right to mention small businesses and the hassles associated with the changes to EI, which have created huge headaches for many small business owners. These owners are finding it virtually impossible to manage their staff, which adds considerably to their burden. I would like to know how confident my colleague is in how the government will implement this bill, regardless of what form it takes. Mrs. Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his relevant question. As I mentioned, I work hands-on in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I have met with and listened to owners of small and medium-sized businesses. In response to my colleague's question, I will share the story of a family-owned grocery store. The store owner told me that the situation had become unbelievable. He told me that he did not have much cash on hand. Furthermore, his wife had to spend time filling out cumbersome forms in the office, for which she was not even paid. This cut into his business's profits. He said that all levels of government should agree on a single form in order to reduce red tape. I told him that the NDP is listening and would improve the situation. Mrs.

Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, businesses and young business owners are the key to Canada's economic prosperity. Under the Conservative government, the manufacturing sector is struggling and has lost some of its lustre. A number of manufacturing companies, such as Electrolux, have lost employees and had to shut down. What measures is the NDP putting forward to support SMEs in the near future and as of 2015?

(1320) Mrs. Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer that question. I will talk about the NDP's sensible, tangible solutions that will make things better for SMEs. We want to reinstate the hiring credit for small businesses, cut taxes for SMEs, cap hidden fees for credit card transactions and create a tax credit for hiring and training young people. Better access to credit for SME owners will help those businesses grow.

We want to make it easier for parents to transfer family businesses to their children, cut red tape, create tax credits to reduce the toll of payroll taxes and encourage SMEs to innovate. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my interest in this bill is twofold because I am the official opposition's Treasury Board critic and the member for a riding that relies heavily on small and medium-sized businesses to create jobs. This year I had the tremendous privilege and pleasure of touring several such businesses in municipalities like Chelsea, Wakefield and Shawville.

I even toured a number of pharmacies to talk about the drug shortage. It was great to consult with business people in my region. They agree that we need to cut red tape, but not necessarily via the approach in this bill. As an MP, of course I believe in the principle of red tape reduction, which will reduce administrative hassles for business people. However, as the official opposition's Treasury Board critic, I have serious concerns about this bill.

As is often the case with the Conservatives' bills, it seems that their almost religious zeal for defending the free market as they see it at any cost has led them to conceal in this bill their intention to eliminate regulations that protect my constituents' health, safety and environment. In light of the listeriosis crises and the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we need this government to guarantee that it will do more to protect and regulate Canadians' health and safety. Regulations that are in the public interest should remain in place.

This bill jeopardizes them because it gives the President of the Treasury Board the power to eliminate such regulations under the guise of reducing paperwork for businesses. That is obviously not the way to achieve sound public administration. It is true that the NDP wants to reduce the administrative burden borne by small businesses, but we do not want to do so at the expense of Canadians' safety. We cannot trust the Conservatives, who have a tendency to deregulate without considering safety, health or the environment.

It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations, but of determining which ones are helping Canadians. This means carrying out a proper study, which is a reasonable approach to public administration. Only the

preamble of the bill states that the regulations affecting 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 guarantee the application of the bill and the regulations that protect their health and safety? I would remind my colleagues in the House of some important facts about this government's tendency to let things slide when it comes to the health and safety of Canadians. The Conservatives do not have a good track record in terms of preserving these regulations.

For instance, last year, the Minister of Transport allowed an exemption to the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the air carrier WestJet. WestJet planes will now be able to operate with one flight attendant per 50 passengers rather than according to the standard of one flight attendant per 40 passengers. Other airlines have since asked for similar exemptions. The NDP has asked that the 1:40 rule be maintained, which is reasonable.

In 1999, the Liberals, who are no better, persisted with the Mulroney government's deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach, which was maintained by the Conservatives. This approach leaves it up to the industry itself to ensure that its operations are safe, instead of ensuring that the government works with the industry to set safety standards that should be followed. Basically, it is self-regulation. The goal of any business is to make a profit.

(1325) That resulted in many derailments throughout the country. In addition, 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. It is unacceptable to compromise the health and safety of workers. It is clear that the Conservative President of the Treasury Board should not be given discretionary powers over our laws and regulations that govern our constituents' health, environment and safety.

It is hard to believe that the Conservatives are sincere about wanting to reduce red tape. They did the exact opposite with the building Canada fund. Instead of helping municipalities and small businesses 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 6- to 18-month delays that will slow down important projects. They did the same thing with their so-called employment insurance reform, which requires that employers provide more and more information about their employees.

In addition, small and medium-sized business are not really getting any help. 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. 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. It was a simple and reasonable solution, but it was rejected. This bill cannot be taken seriously.

The principle behind it is good, but it is unclear whether it will achieve the expected results. [ English ] What we really need to do for small businesses is to identify what does not make sense in the system and eliminate it. That is 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, for example, 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 is for government procurement contracts. I do not know if members realize this, but small- and medium-size businesses are defined as 500 employees and less.

I would approximate that, in my riding, the average number of employees that small and medium-size businesses have is 25. Therefore, it is completely unreasonable to expect a company with 25 employees to compete with the supposed small and medium-size business with 499 employees. It does not make any sense. There is no sensitivity built into the system regarding profit margins, the size of staff, et cetera. We could talk about the service agreement between merchants and credit card companies that profit small business owners by directly passing on these fees to consumers.

This increases the price of goods on everything. Despite dismissing a recent case against Visa and Mastercard, in a rare move, the Competition Tribunal called for a regulatory framework to deal with anti-competitive practices. We could also create a new tax credit for businesses that hire and train young people, and financing to help small business owners grow their business. We could make it easier for parents to pass family businesses to their kids, create tax credits to offset payroll taxes, and help small businesses innovate, et cetera.

In the agricultural sector, we could perhaps do something about risk capital and high interest rates for acquiring new agricultural lands. It is clear that on this side of the equation, we are proposing sensible, concrete, realistic means of truly helping our small and medium-si