“The idea of a green shift economy is a myth. Canada needs an economy built on oil and gas. I want the member who just joined the Liberals to tell us if she has convinced her new party of that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague’s speech. As noted, she is somebody who has a background in chemical engineering. I have always appreciated that about her, as well as her ability to get facts, figures and everything else. She talked in her speech about the increases in oil, gas and mining that are going to happen here, and of all the sensors that are going to have to be part and parcel of that. All of those sensors, and she would know this, have an embedded carbon price, as does the increased production of oil and gas, in particular, to make sure we have a baseload in a reliable energy system in this country. Since she has crossed the floor, and I am going to ask the member this question very clearly, has she managed to convince the rest of her new colleagues over there that this whole green shift economy is a bit of a myth and that we need to build a sustainable economy in Canada that depends on oil and gas?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 21 of 100

  Only 8% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I agree that we need standard, up-to-date measurements. But other government bills have wasted money. How does this bill protect Canadians from higher costs and wasted money?”

“Mr. Speaker, we have a statute mile, a geographical mile, the U.S. survey mile, an admiralty mile, a nautical mile, a data mile, and tactical mile. The list goes on. As a former navigator, I understand the importance of efficiency, standardizing and updating measurements. I thank the member opposite for her impassioned speech. I have weighed her comments, pardon the pun, and measured them closely. My question though is, after seeing so many scandals, wasted money and inefficiencies with other Liberal bills, what protections are in this bill to ensure that Canadians do not see increased prices or increased costs and to prevent money being wasted?”

“Small businesses in rural areas already face rising costs. This bill could add more rules and costs for them. What is the government doing to stop that from happening?”

“Mr. Speaker, small businesses in rural communities, such as the one where I live in Haldimand—Norfolk, are already facing rising operating costs. The new requirements in Bill S-3 could potentially add red tape and additional costs on those businesses. What is the government putting in place to ensure that this does not happen?”

“I support this bill. It updates our measurement laws. This helps make sure people get what they pay for, like getting the right amount of gas at the pump, accurate power bills, and the right weight of food at the grocery store.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today generally in support of Bill S-3, legislation that modernizes Canada’s measurement laws through amendments to the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, as well as the weights and measures regulations and the electricity and gas inspection regulations. When legislation like this comes before Parliament, it is quite appreciated. Legislation like this will help modernize the Canadian economy. I will note, however, based on what I have heard in Debates so far, it was actually the government representative in the Senate who tabled the legislation. In fact, the Liberal government has a tradition of taking bills like this, bills that are highly technical in nature, like some of the red tape reduction acts in the previous Parliament, to do some of the foundational work that governments are actually responsible for. I am not criticizing that approach, but it is the tradition of the Liberal government to do that. Why is this bill, which at first glance a Canadian would see through a very narrow and highly technical lens, actually important? If I were to talk to my constituents about this bill, I would outline the little metal placard at every gas station in Canada that allows them to understand that, when they fill up their truck in Mission and expect to pay for 50 litres of gasoline, they are actually getting 50 litres. When a family in Abbotsford receives their monthly electricity or natural gas bill, they expect the metre to accurately measure what they have, in fact, consumed. When someone purchases a kilogram of apples or, as the member previously mentioned, deli meats at the grocery store, they trust that the scale is, in fact, giving an accurate reading.”

“I support this bill, but I want committee to check it carefully. It updates our inspection rules so inspectors can use digital tools and prevent problems before they happen. However, it gives the minister new powers, and we must make sure there are strict limits on how those powers are used.”

“Madam Speaker, these transactions seem routine, but they are built upon a foundation of public confidence that when we do business, buy fuel or transport goods, or when oil is shipped through my riding, for example, the systems underpinning our economy are accurate, fair and trustworthy. The purpose of Bill S-3, therefore, is not simply to protect those standards. It is also to modernize them and how the government is enforcing them. I think the enforcement part really deserves a lot of attention during the upcoming debate. In my view, from my preliminary reading of the legislation, the most significant parts of the bill are found in sections 17 and 19, because they recognize a reality that many Canadians have been pointing out for years: government institutions cannot continue operating with 20th-century tools in a 21st-century economy. Section 17 is perhaps the clearest example of this modernization effort. Today, businesses increasingly operate through digital platforms. Records are stored electronically, transactions move through complex telecommunication systems, and data is generated and transferred in real time, yet many of the regulatory frameworks that operate under our current laws were designed in an era when inspectors relied on paper records and on-site reviews. Section 17 would modernize our way of doing business, the way of regulating the flow of goods in Canada, and would acknowledge that the world has changed. It would equip inspectors with the ability to access electronic records, review information contained within computer systems, reproduce digital documents and make use of telecommunication technologies in the conduct of their responsibilities. In practical terms, it would mean that regulators could follow information where it actually exists in today’s economy, rather than simply relying exclusively on paper records and physical inspections, which is, frankly, way too common in our economy. It would give the power to inspectors to access and review information in a digital environment where modern commerce increasingly occurs. This may sound like just a technical change, but it reflects an important principle: Effective oversight requires modern tools. I believe that Canadians understand that principle even more instinctively than government does today. In fact, one of the most consistent criticisms I hear, living in and representing a community on the border with the United States, at the border crossing in my riding, is that our institutions are not modernizing quickly enough. No agency illustrates this concern more clearly than Canada Border Services Agency. Canadians routinely hear concerns about long processing times, increasing trade volumes, evolving criminal networks and the growing sophistication of cross-border threats. Where I live, we hear many concerns about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at our points of entry. There are concerns with its capacity to examine things such as spent fowl, chicken from birds that were used for hatching eggs, coming into Canada, and whether it is compliant with existing trade frameworks and regulations. Canadians are concerned that we are not doing a good enough job monitoring the flow of goods in an effective way that upholds our trade agreements and Canadian businesses. This concern is not merely whether government has enough personnel or capacity. It is whether government has applied the right tools to ensure equity, equal terms, in the way we do business. Canadians expect the agencies responsible for protecting our borders to operate in the digital world. They expect those agencies to use modern technology, modern data analysis and modern inspection techniques. They expect government to identify risks efficiently rather than relying on the outdated processes that, I believe, Bill S-3 is, in good faith, trying to amend. I should be clear that Bill S-3 would not amend legislation governing CBSA. However, section 17 and other parts of the bill reflect exactly the kind of modernization mindset that Canadians increasingly want to see throughout government. When Parliament recognizes that inspection agencies need access to electronic information, digital records, measuring equipment or telecommunications in order to do their job effectively, it is acknowledging a broader truth that modernization is no longer optional. This does touch close to home for my constituents. The transfer station for the Trans Mountain pipeline is on Sumas Mountain, just a few kilometres from where I grew up. At that transfer station, 37% of all oil shipped through the Trans Mountain pipeline goes under Highway 1 and across Sumas Prairie to northern Washington state, where it is processed and refined. The Enbridge natural gas pipeline was approved by the Liberal government. It has a transfer station at the Huntingdon border crossing area as well. My constituents expect government to make sure that they have the most modern and efficient ways of regulating the flow of those goods, not only to protect but also to monitor and to know what we are actually doing in our economy. Government oversight has to evolve alongside the economy it regulates. That same modernization philosophy, I will note, can be seen in section 19. Historically, regulators often operated in a reactive manner. A violation occurred, and the government would respond. Section 19 would move us toward a preventative model by giving regulators tools to require corrective and preventative measures before non-compliance becomes entrenched or there is an accident with the Trans Mountain pipeline, just as an example. In other words, the focus would shift from reacting to violations and toward preventing violations. That may seem like a subtle distinction, but would represent a significant change in our regulatory approach here in Canada. I will note that Canadians businesses consistently want this regulatory change, so whether we are discussing consumer protection, public safety, transportation or border security, my constituents want to know that the government has the ability to identify risks and to respond proactively. In the same region where the Trans Mountain pipeline crosses Sumas Prairie, there are pumps that regulate water flow. It was those same pumps and our diking system that failed in 2021 and exposed the Enbridge pipeline and the Trans Mountain pipeline to risk. Those pump stations were not up to date and were not working effectively. This legislation might improve our overall effectiveness at doing those tasks. Going back to discussion about the border, when Canadians express frustration about border management, they are frequently expressing frustration with a system they perceive as reactive rather than proactive. They want government to anticipate emerging threats, whether it is food safety or illegal drugs going north and south on the border. They want systems that identify risk before they reach our communities. They want agencies that leverage technology and intelligence to stay ahead of evolving challenges. The preventative approach, the risk-based approach, reflected in section 19, mirrors those broader expectations and recognizes that effective regulation is not simply about enforcement after the fact; it is about building systems that reduce harm. Whether Canadians are filling up their vehicles, reviewing their utility bills, purchasing goods at a store or expecting government agencies to protect our borders, they want to know that systems are serving a purpose, that the members of the House are taking care of business in the most real way possible to make sure that people can move goods and do so effectively. In conclusion, as the bill is scrutinized in Parliament, I hope my fellow legislators will review with a fine-tooth comb the sections that would expand power to, as the bill refers to, the president, who is in fact the industry minister, with new inspection powers, especially with respect to the data and technology components that would be added to the legislation. It is important to ensure that there would in fact be proper checks and balances put upon the use of those powers, and that the use of those powers would be extremely limited to the flow of goods in question that are subject to these existing laws and regulations under the Weights and Measures Act and other applicable bills. For these reasons, I do believe, with a tiny bit of apprehension about ministerial power, that Bill S-3 is a step in the right direction. I look forward to a wholesome debate, a technical debate, that would improve the way we conduct commerce in Canada.”

“I want this bill to pass. But the committee studying it should clearly define the new powers it gives to officials. Businesses need to know exactly how these new rules will work.”

“Madam Speaker, I do agree. I want the bill passed. I believe that, at the committee stage, it would be useful for Parliament to clarify the powers of the president as outlined in clause 17 and clause 19, the purview of those powers, to make sure there is clarity for the Canadian economy in the conduct of the proposed new preventative measures and the risk-based approach applied in Bill S-3.”

“This bill requires a review every 10 years so we do not wait 40 years to update the law again. But the government is already late on 13 other required reviews. What is the point of putting these reviews into law if the government ignores them?”

“Madam Speaker, in Bill S-3, there is a requirement to introduce a 10-year review, a legislative review, to ensure that we do not come into the position where Bill S-3 is needed again in the future. As the bill outlines, it has been about 40 years. I cannot help but be a little bit cynical, though, because I did an Order Paper question on the fact that the government has 13 acts that already have overdue mandated legislative reviews. In particular, I have raised the review for the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act. It was due on October 6, 2022. The Minister of Public Safety promised me in the House that the government is going to introduce that legislative review this fall, this year. He specifically said that. My suspicion is that he is not going to deliver on that promise. What does my hon. colleague think is the value of these mandated reviews if the Liberal government is going to ignore them anyway?”

“We cannot trust the government to review this bill in ten years. They already missed deadlines to review other laws, including environmental laws. Parliament has the resources to do these reviews, but the government does not keep its promises to do them.”

“Madam Speaker, the legislation that comes to my mind is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government has missed many deadlines to review legislation that actually overlaps with the bill before us here today. A responsible Parliament and a responsible House leader will not negate the promises made to Canadians about the proper conduct of legislation. We have ample resources in the House to conduct such reviews, including the capacity to create subcommittees for every standing committee. The government has so far not upheld that legislative responsibility and the promises it made to Canadians on many of the 13 laws the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound mentioned. That is something we can take away from the debate, about the actual applicability of a 10-year review if the government is not going to follow it.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“We have concerns about this bill that we want to discuss in committee. Did the member look at the Senate debates on it, and what points from those debates should we bring to our committee?”

“Madam Speaker, I commend the member on his speech. It was excellent. We have some concerns that we are looking forward to discussing further at the committee stage. I wonder if he had an opportunity to review some of the discussions that happened on this bill in the Senate, where it originated, and what out of that he might be bringing forward should he or our colleagues have the opportunity to discuss this bill later in the House committee process.”

“I want this bill to go to committee so we can clarify key parts of it. Parliament needs to focus on practical work that helps the economy run properly, especially as the government builds a new pipeline along the Trans Mountain route.”

“Madam Speaker, I have yet to review the Hansard from the Senate on Bill S-3. I will acknowledge that. However, from my preliminary reading of this legislation, it is very clear that a couple of key portions of it can be properly clarified in Parliament for the well-being of Canada, especially as the government pursues a new pipeline along the existing route of the Trans Mountain pipeline. That will touch upon other pieces of the legislation, like the Fisheries Act, for example, which requires legislative reviews in Parliament that I do not necessarily believe have all taken place according to their scheduled reviews. Let this bill be a wake-up call for Parliament that sometimes we need to get down to the messy but important business of making sure that our country functions in a way that is responsible for all Canadians, and that sometimes we need to leave politics completely outside of it but do our very best to make sure the economy is humming and our weights and measures are all aligned so people can make money and live a better life.”

“Parts of this bill need a closer look. I will send my written feedback to the minister so we can make sure more oil flows through my riding to support the economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I have already outlined areas in sections 17 and 19 and in the mandatory review clause during questions and comments, and I believe they need further scrutiny. I have yet to write such amendments, but I would be pleased to provide commentary in writing to the relevant minister to ensure that more oil flows through Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford to support the Canadian economy in the best way possible.”

• Vague
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Clarity 18 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know if this bill lets the minister look at private company data. We need clear limits on that power to protect businesses.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a good question. For the powers mentioned in Bill S-3, I want to know if the minister can access the electronic data or even other data used by the telecommunications sector. I want to ensure that this power is properly circumscribed to protect the private and commercial interests of the company in question.”

“Small business owners tell me that too many rules keep them from succeeding. How should we balance cutting red tape with protecting consumers?”

“Madam Speaker, when I am in my riding, I hear a lot of small business owners say that they cannot succeed or get ahead because there is so much red tape and there are so many rules. They cannot even sell a loaf of bread without all of these regulations. I am curious if the hon. member would like to speak to how we need to strike a balance among reducing red tape, having a deregulated economy and, at the same time, protecting consumers and Canadians.”

“We should raise the sales tax limit for small businesses from $30,000 to $60,000 before they have to register with the tax agency. This would cut red tape and help new businesses grow. I also encourage everyone to buy Canadian and support local small businesses this week.”

“Madam Speaker, more broadly on reducing red tape, earlier today during question period, I posed a very serious question to the government on just that in the context of Small Business Week. With my remaining time, I would encourage everyone in this chamber to support a local small business and to buy Canadian this week. It is very important because many businesses are struggling. I suggested, and I think this is very applicable to Newfoundland and Labrador, that we increase the GST remittance threshold from $30,000 to $60,000 to help the mom working a side hustle on weekends, as the former minister of small business did when she was a banker and was baking cakes. Then right off the bat when they get started, they would not be subject to registration with the CRA, which does the dirty work of collecting taxes. We would allow those businesses to flourish without red tape in the first place. This would be great for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“I support updating our laws on weights and meters, but I have questions about this bill. It gives ministers and inspectors more power, and we need rules to keep that fair. We must make sure these changes do not add new costs or paperwork for small businesses, and that scales and energy meters stay accurate so shoppers are not overcharged. A committee needs to look into these details.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my neighbours, friends and family in Oshawa. Today I rise to speak to Bill S-3, which proposes changes to Canada’s laws governing weights and measures and the inspection of electricity and natural gas meters. When I look at legislation like this, I cannot help but think about the people and businesses in my community that will be affected by it. I think about the small business owner who is trying to keep the doors open, the manufacturer working to remain competitive and the family already stretching every dollar to make ends meet. This reminds me of a story my sister told me last night. Apparently, there are some videos and reels going around showing folks in grocery stores with prepackaged goods, maybe a bag of peanuts or meat. They read the weight on it, and then take it to a scale and weigh it, and it is a different weight. This brought me to thinking about why this bill is so important. I understand that, and Canadians are counting on it, for fairness especially. Let us be honest. Most Canadians are never going to read the Weights and Measures Act, and frankly, they should not have to, because they expect the rules governing our economy to be fair, reliable and sensible. It is our responsibility to make sure they are. Canadians expect businesses to be held to consistent standards, consumers to be protected and government regulations to serve a purpose rather than create unnecessary obstacles. We have seen that far too often in our economy. That is the standard against which I believe Bill S-3 should be measured. Our economy has undergone an extraordinary transformation. Technologies that would have been difficult to imagine 40 years ago are now essential to how Canadian businesses operate. From automated manufacturing processes to digital measuring equipment and increasingly sophisticated energy systems, the way we produce, purchase and consume goods has changed dramatically. However, our regulatory framework has not kept pace. In fact, I believe I was a very small child the last time the act was updated. Bill S-3 seeks to address this by updating how measures and devices are approved and inspected, allowing more flexible methods of verification and removing certain outdated regulatory requirements. There is definite merit to these objectives. As Conservatives, of course, we believe that government should create the conditions for businesses to succeed, not stand in their way. Regulations should protect Canadians while also allowing businesses to innovate, invest and create good-paying jobs. I feel that principle is especially important in my community of Oshawa. I have said many times in this House that Oshawa is a city built on hard work. I believe some of the most hard-working people in the country reside and live in my neighbourhood in Oshawa. For generations, our automotive workers and manufacturers have helped drive the whole Canadian economy. Our community knows what it means to compete, adapt and innovate in an industry that is constantly changing. Our manufacturing sector relies on precision, efficiency and the ability to adopt new technologies. Whether it is with regard to measuring materials, monitoring energy consumption or ensuring consistent production standards, accuracy is fundamental to doing business. We know this. Canadian manufacturers are also competing in an increasingly difficult economic environment. They face rising operating costs, international competition and uncertainty about the future of their industries. The last thing they need is a regulatory system that makes it harder or more expensive to invest in new technologies. This is why I believe there is value in updating outdated rules and making regulatory processes more efficient. If a business can demonstrate that its equipment meets appropriate standards, it should not face unnecessary delays simply because the law has failed to keep up with technological advancements. At the same time, modernization must deliver real improvements. It cannot simply mean replacing one set of complicated government requirements with another. We have seen too many examples of Canadian businesses being forced to spend more time navigating government paperwork and less time doing what they do best. For a large corporation, additional administrative requirements may be an inconvenience, but for a small business owner, they can mean a whole lot more, such as additional expenses that could hurt them, lost productivity and fewer resources available to hire workers or to grow their business. In Oshawa, our local businesses are an essential part of our community. They employ our neighbours, support local families and contribute to the local economy. Whether it is a family-owned grocery store, an independent retailer or a small manufacturing operation, these businesses need clear and predictable rules. They should not have to hire additional consultants or spend countless hours navigating complicated regulatory processes simply to remain compliant. This is why I believe one of the most important questions surrounding Bill S-3 is whether it would actually reduce the burden on Canadian businesses. I think in many cases it could. Would the changes make inspections more efficient? Would businesses have greater certainty when adopting new technologies? Would the government ensure that any new requirements were practical and affordable for all business owners across the country? These are questions that deserve clear answers, and I think some of them will be demonstrated and dug into even deeper as this bill gets into our committee. Another issue that deserves attention is the expansion of regulatory authority proposed in the legislation. Bill S-3 would provide the Minister of Industry and federal inspectors with additional powers, including greater flexibility over the approval and inspection of measuring devices. Some of these changes may be necessary to modernize the system, but Parliament has a responsibility to examine how the powers are exercised. I am always hesitant when I hear of a bill placing more power in one minister’s hands, but I certainly understand the responsibility we have to make sure that the powers are exercised appropriately. Greater flexibility for government officials must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and transparencies. We must ensure that businesses understand the rules they are expected to follow, that decisions are made consistently and that there are meaningful opportunities to challenge decisions when disagreements arise. This brings me to another important consideration, which is the ability of Canadian businesses to seek fair and timely resolution when disputes occur. If a business disagrees with a regulatory decision, it should have access to a process that is understandable, impartial and reasonably efficient. For small businesses, a prolonged dispute with a federal regulator could create significant uncertainty and expense, and I do not think any of us in the House want that for any of our small businesses. The goal should never be to make it more difficult for them to defend their interests and have their concerns heard, so I felt it was important to bring that up. We must also consider what these changes could mean for Canadian consumers. After 11 years of Liberal government, families across the country are struggling with rising costs of everyday necessities. Consumers are struggling. People are working so hard to try to make ends meet. In Oshawa, I hear from parents who are watching their grocery bills climb and seniors who cannot even keep up with their utility payments. They are afraid they are not going to be able to keep the heat on this winter. There are workers who are finding it increasingly difficult to make their paycheques stretch until the end of the month. These Canadians are already paying more than they should have to for life’s essentials. They deserve to have the confidence that the systems used to calculate what they owe are accurate and dependable. Whether it is the scale at the grocery store, as I mentioned before, the meter measuring household energy consumption or the equipment used to calculate the price of fuel, consumers should be protected by reliable standards. Bill S-3 proposes allowing certain measuring devices to be inspected through sampling methods rather than requiring every individual device to be examined. This may improve efficiency, but it is important that these methods maintain the accuracy and, of course, the reliability that Canadians expect. The government must be able to demonstrate that greater flexibility will not weaken consumer protections, because when families are already struggling with affordability, even small inaccuracies or additional costs add up and can make a huge difference. While Bill S-3 is intended to modernize the regulatory framework, Canadians deserve to understand the financial implications of implementing it. Would businesses face new compliance expenses? Would there be additional administrative costs for government? What steps would be taken to prevent those expenses from being passed along to consumers? All these questions are particularly important for small businesses that are already operating under significant financial pressure. Modernization should make government more effective and less burdensome, not create another layer of bureaucracy that Canadian taxpayers and businesses are expected to finance. Bill S-3 includes provisions requiring periodic parliamentary reviews of the amended legislation, which is a positive step as long as those reviews actually take place, because our laws should continue to evolve as technologies and industries change. However, meaningful accountability also requires transparency through the implementation process. Canadians should be able to understand how regulatory decisions are made, how businesses are affected and whether the changes are delivering the efficiencies that have been promised. At the end of the day, the success of this legislation should not be judged by how many regulations are rewritten or how many new authorities are created. It should be judged by whether consumers are better protected, whether businesses face fewer unnecessary obstacles and whether Canada’s economy is better positioned to compete on the world stage. Our responsibility, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that the legislation delivers meaningful improvements for Canadians and businesses that would be affected by it. Canadians do not need more government for the sake of government. I think they need a government that works better, costs less and delivers results.”

“I hope this bill helps small businesses and consumers. But it could also hurt them in ways we do not expect. The committee needs to study every part of it carefully to make sure it gets the balance right.”

“Madam Speaker, that is my hope. My hope is that it would, in fact, benefit small businesses and consumers. However, that does not negate the questions that I had in my speech, and that it would not also negatively impact them with unintended consequences. I think that it is incumbent upon the committee members, when it comes before them, to take a look at each and every piece to make sure we find the balance necessary so that businesses can get a move on.”

“We must be careful when we give a minister more power. Giving the minister more flexibility might modernize the rules, but we need clear safeguards, transparency, and accountability. Parliament should not give away power without knowing how the minister will use it and answer for it. I want the industry committee to study this bill carefully to make sure there is strong accountability.”

“Madam Speaker, I believe we must be very careful whenever legislation expands the powers of a minister. While greater flexibility may help modernize an updated regulatory system, the powers must come with clear safeguards, transparency and accountability. Parliament should not simply hand over additional authority without understanding how it would be exercised, how they would be accountable and that we could review it again in the appropriate time when we are supposed to. I would expect the industry committee to examine very carefully when it sees this bill that the powers come with great accountability.”