Bill S-12 (Historical)

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations

This enactment amends the Statutory Instruments Act to provide for the express power to incorporate by reference in regulations. It imposes an obligation on regulation-making authorities to ensure that a document, index, rate or number that is incorporated by reference is accessible. It also provides that a person is not liable to be found guilty of an offence or subjected to an administrative sanction for a contravention relating to a document, index, rate or number that is incorporated by reference unless certain requirements in relation to accessibility are met. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Peace River eventually got around Bill S-12. However, I would like to ask him a question.

I am thinking about small business as well in the context of this act. Some commentators have noted that will be difficult for people who are affected by regulations to stay on top of those regulations with the ease with which things can be incorporated by reference. There will be less scrutiny and, while things may be in legislation described as “accessible”, we have seen the Conservative government take labels off cans and say that they are now accessible on a website. We have already seen that under Bill C-38 pharmaceutical drugs will be maintained on a list as opposed to posted in the Canada Gazette for full regulation.

Is the member not just a little troubled that some of the people in business with whom he empathizes, and rightly so, could find themselves on the wrong side of a regulation about which they had much less notice because of Bill S-12?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question on the substance of Bill S-12, which is a bill to amend the Statutory Instruments Act to deal with ambulatory references and the like.

One of the things that has caused me concern, and I would like his comment on, is whether the term “accessible” should be defined.

The bill imposes an obligation, as the member knows, on regulation-making authorities to ensure that certain documents that are incorporated by reference are accessible. However, the bill does not have a definition of “accessible”. Does my colleague think it needs to be defined so we could know what it means?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impugn motives on my colleagues, but anytime they hear about the oil and gas industry or farming or the forestry sector, they want to shut down debate on those issues.

That is why they tried to shut down the debate in this House earlier today. They want to go home. They do not want to talk about important things like jobs, opportunities, prosperity and hope in this country.

Incorporating by reference, the material in this bill would do exactly that. It would streamline things to ensure that there is efficiency, clarity and assurance for people who are involved in these sectors, in agriculture, the oil and gas sector and the forestry sector. These are companies, industries, small business people who depend on referencing regularly the legislation that is important to their industries.

There is a number of very important issues that are being brought forward in this bill that are entirely important with regard to these industries.

Mr. Speaker, you are an expert in this House, you have been in this place for some time and you know that this is a modern technique of incorporating by reference through regulation.

The Senate was criticized by my colleagues earlier, but I can assure the hon. members opposite that even the Senate did not shut down to go home early. It got its work done and sent us a bill, an important bill. The senators heard evidence at their committee hearings, and we will see if these members on the opposite side stick around long enough to hear witnesses on this side.

What we do hear from the witnesses the Senate heard is that it is important to move forward on this legislation. For the first time, Bill S-12 would impose a regulation requirement, a positive obligation on regulators to ensure that the reference is accessible to those people who are being regulated.

That answers the question that some of the members opposite were wondering about. They had not read the legislation, clearly. I want to assure the members opposite that there is a positive obligation on the regulators to ensure that the information is available to those who are being regulated. If it is not, then the person who is being regulated is not responsible. That is the first time in Canadian legislation that that has in fact happened.

There is a number of things that Bill S-12 would do. One of the things it would do is reduce unnecessary duplication and costs within the federal government and on some of our other levels of government, as well as, more importantly, on small business.

This is one of the things I heard about regularly as I served as a commissioner on the red tape reduction commission. We travelled from coast to coast. I hear the hon. members on the opposite side heckling again. Anytime they hear about the reduction of red tape, they are opposed to that. We know that. They have made that clear. That is why they have lost all the elections my colleague referenced earlier.

What we heard from small business owners, those people who create jobs, those who are the drivers of our economy in this nation, is “We need less duplication; we need more clarity; we need the regulations that we are required to follow to be user-friendly.” That is exactly what this bill would do.

My colleagues from the opposite side also referenced the scary notion that by incorporating our work with other jurisdictions, somehow that was going to be the end of the world.

I am a big federalist. I believe we have great provinces and territories from coast to coast. I am different from the leader of the Liberal Party, who comes to Alberta and basically says Albertans are some kind of nasty folks, and the Leader of the Opposition, who we hear continually criticizing the industries in my province.

I recognize that is not the view of my colleagues in the opposition parties. However, here on this side of the House, on the Conservative benches, we believe that every province and every territory is an important part of this country, and we trust them all. We believe we can incorporate by reference.

I was talking to John today. He is a hard-working Canadian. He is still working tonight. John Holtby was talking to me about the necessity to incorporate by reference beekeeping regulations.

He believes there needs to be more clarity when it comes to the freedom of individuals to have bee-keeping operations in communities across the country in a more homogenous way. This was something I heard directly from a constituent. He is a hard-working Canadian still working tonight and this is something he talked about.

While the opposition members are opposed to coordinating with our provinces, I am a strong federalist and I strongly trust provinces and territories across the country. I do not think they are somehow going to do something nasty to the federal government. Therefore, it is important we work together in a collaborative fashion to ensure we streamline things, provide more clarity to business owners, reduce duplication and ensure that when people are being regulated that, first and foremost, they can find those regulations, which is established in this bill, and that they be clear. That is what is established in this bill. It is something that is great news to all Canadians, specifically small business owners and people who work in other levels of government across our great nation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I will give the member for Peace River the recognition that he mentioned Bill S-12, but he has not spent more than about five seconds on that bill and a bunch of other things that have some indirect relevance. I will allow him to continue, but I would encourage him to begin to address at least some comments to the bill that is before the House for debate this evening.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to interrupt my colleague's speech, which is completely irrelevant. We are discussing Bill S-12, and he has yet to mention it in his speech. I would ask that you call him to order.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how relieved I am to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I was not sure when it first came up that I wanted to speak to it, but I started to receive a lot of calls and emails from concerned Canadians, Semhar Tekeste. She said to me that I had to get in and speak to this bill and that it was very, very important. She called me so many times today. She emailed me a number of times and said that I had to get into the House and talk about this bill. She said specifically that Bill S-12, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the statutory instruments regulations is very important, and she wanted me to come in here and speak to it. The more I looked at it, the more I thought to myself that it is a very important bill.

The member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca earlier talked about how hard his constituents work. They work 12 hours a day, and then they sometimes have to drive a couple of hours to get home. I wonder how they would feel knowing that the opposition cannot wait to get out of here. We hear so much about the orange wave, the orange tide. Apparently, the tide does not come in after 6 o'clock. After 6 o'clock that is the end of the tide. They do not want to come into work. They are too tired.

We should make no mistake. Canadians do not pay us a little to be here. All of us are very fortunate. We make $150,000 to be in this place to debate the issues that are important to Canadians, yet the NDP members want to go home. I have heard them all day talk about how lazy the Senate is, and they want to abolish the Senate. I now understand why the NDP members are so desperate to abolish the Senate. They are actually embarrassed that the Senate works harder than they do, so they want to abolish the Senate. It is actually unbelievable. Here we are in a time of global economic uncertainty, and at 10 o'clock, they have to go home. I cannot fathom that. I guess, on their behalf, I will apologize to all those Canadians who invest so much in this place.

My parents came to this country. They worked hard. I talked about this last night. They owned a pizza store when I was young. They got up at 10 o'clock every morning, and they were at the store. They worked all day and all night until 3 o'clock the next morning. They worked very hard to support the family. They never once complained. They worked extraordinarily hard, long hours. They never once complained about how difficult their lot was in life. They did not try to pass a motion to go home at 10:30. When people called the store and wanted to order pizza, they did not say they had to vote because they maybe wanted to go home early. They did not do that. They did what all other Canadians do. They worked hard. They invested in their families. They invested in their business, and they were proud to do it. I wish sometimes that the NDP, and in fact the Liberals, would actually consider those hard-working Canadians who have sent us here before they decide to go home.

We also heard the opposition talk about the loss of Canadian sovereignty. It seems to me that I have heard this before. That is what the NDP said when it opposed the auto pact. It opposed the auto pact because it worried about sovereignty. Free trade came around, and it did not want free trade, because it felt we would lose our sovereignty. The fact of the matter is that the auto pact created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Free trade has created millions of jobs and incredible economic growth in our country. We have not lost sovereignty. In fact, we have increased our sovereignty, because now we are one of those countries in the world where everyone wants to invest. We have created over 900,000 jobs, in part because we are open to trade, yet they want to turn their backs on that.

When I heard the member from Fort McMurray talk about his hard-working constituents, I could not help but feel somewhat embarrassed for the NDP and Liberals, because they had to go home early. However, let me tell all Canadians, who I know are watching intently, especially on this particular debate on this bill, that the Conservatives on both sides of the House will stay here, debate and talk about the issues that are important to them, no matter how long it takes to make sure that we continue this economic recovery we have seen.

Let us talk a bit about this further. I will read this to the House. It states:

...regulations that use this technique are effective in facilitating intergovernmental co-operation and harmonization, a key objective of the Regulatory Cooperation Council established by our Prime Minister and President Obama.

How exciting is that? This would eliminate red tape. I understand that on that side of the House red tape is something they revel in because it confuses people. It slows down the economy. It makes it harder for business.

On this side of the House we are all about eliminating red tape. We are about unleashing the potential of the economy, of small businesses, of those sectors that create jobs, economic growth and value for Canadians, all of which help put more money in the pockets of Canadians so they can invest in themselves and their families. That is what we are trying to do on this side of the House each and every day. Even if the NDP members are desperate to shut down debate, like they do every single night in this place, we will still work on that.

It goes even further to state:

Referencing material that is internationally accepted rather than attempting to reproduce the same rules in the regulations also reduces technical differences that create barriers to trade—

That part is so exciting. I will read it again because it references something I know the NDP know nothing about, which is trade.

Referencing material that is internationally accepted rather than attempting to reproduce the same rules in the regulations also reduces technical differences that create barriers to trade—

How exciting is that for the millions of Canadians at home watching this tonight thinking that finally they have a government that is prepared to make those types of changes so that we can make things better for them?

I will flip over a couple of pages because this is where it gets really exciting. It mentions that with this important regulatory tool come corresponding obligations. It then states:

[The bill] not only recognizes the need to provide a solid legal basis for the use of this regulatory drafting technique, but it also expressly imposes in legislation an obligation on all regulators to ensure that the documents they incorporate are accessible—

It is almost remarkable that we have waited so long to pass this. Honestly, we have been seized with a global economic crisis in this country. We have been seized with putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. We have been seized with opening up new markets for our manufacturers and getting new trade deals out there. We are working on a trade deal with the European Union. We have been seized with creating better relations with our American friends.

We all know what the Liberals did to our relations with the United States when they were stomping on dolls of the American presidents and insulting them all the time. We came to an historic low in those bilateral relations.

We have been bringing our budget back into balance while at the same time investing in Canadians and infrastructure across this country so that as we come out of the global economic downturn ahead of anybody else, we have the resources and the infrastructure in place so that our Canadian businesses, families and communities can succeed.

I am yelling a bit because I was not sure that the microphones are working. I heard the member from Hamilton and the member for Newton—North Delta screaming so much I thought the microphones were down, so I thought I would elevate my voice.

I am proud of the fact that this concerned Canadian called me and sent me an email as late as 10 o'clock asking me to come and talk to the bill. I responded that for her and for the millions of Canadians who are relying on us, I am prepared to work late and do whatever I have to do to make sure that this economy and this country remain great. I am only sorry that the opposition members do not feel that same sense of passion.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague on his excellent speech, which shed a great deal of light on Bill S-12.

Since the bill raises a huge number of questions and concerns, we want to support it so that it is sent to committee and we can propose amendments.

In November 2012, the hon. Mac Harb shared some of his observations. He said:

...Bill S-12, as presented, undermines democratic principles by eroding Parliament's oversight of legislation, and it will make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens who will not have adequate access to the content of Canadian laws.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate, although at times it can seem rather obtuse and obscure. There are all kinds of adjectives, I suppose, to describe it from the perspective of even parliamentarians who may not be as well versed as my colleague from Hamilton Mountain around the idea of regulatory change and what those regulatory statutes actually mean.

As someone who used to be a municipal councillor, I know all too well that when we pass things like a safe water act, for instance, in the province of Ontario, when the act comes to municipalities, it is not the act that scares us but the regulations. When the act comes down, it is about two and a half to three pages, and then the book comes, and it is sometimes really quite thick with the regulations that one now has to put into force or enact or find a way to do. It is those pieces that ultimately make that piece of legislation work and that form the backbone of the legislation, if you will. In fact, it would be the nuts and bolts. That is how it makes all of these things work.

Many of us in this place, I would suggest, know that we pass legislation and debate it in this place, but then off it goes somewhere else where the regulations that go behind the legislation to give it teeth or put meat on the bones are put in place, so it can go forward and actually mean something.

The regulations get drafted in different ways and it all becomes part of that bigger piece that the general public would see as that maze of government bureaucracy they say they deal with. They do not actually necessarily deal with the act specifically; they deal with the specific regulations, nine times out of ten. When they come to our office to complain about something, it is the regulation of the particular act they are complaining about, not the act that may have been passed in this House.

What I found quite astounding was the number of regulations. We are literally talking about thousands. At the moment there are at the federal level approximately 3,000 regulations comprising 30,000 pages of text.

For folks to wade through that material to find out what the regulations are that might impact them in whatever sphere of life they are in, whether it be business or other things they are partaking in as a general part of their lives, is quite a daunting task when they come up against something and they try to figure it out.

We find, to give it some sense of context, there are about 450 statutes of 13,000 pages. Again, the acts themselves that we pass here are such minor pieces of the overall legislation when the regulations are finally written and enacted and put behind it. That speaks to the volume of material that folks would have to navigate to try to figure out what they need to know, what they do not need to know and what their obligations and their rights are, because obviously regulations give us certain rights as well as obligations.

What if some folks breached one of the regulations? They need to understand the regulation because, as a traffic officer explained to me when I used to sit on a municipal police association board, going through a stop sign and saying we did not see it is not a defence. Ignorance of the law is no defence. If we did not see the traffic signal and just kept driving, that is not a defence. The same thing happens with regulations. The fact that we do not know about them is not a defence, because there is an obligation for us to know and understand them. It also gives us the right under the regulations to do certain things, whatever that happens to be, based on the regulations.

Ultimately it is a dual piece of rights and obligations. One needs to find a way to understand them, but to understand them, we have to be able to find them. When we talk about this incorporation, whether it be a static piece or an ambulatory piece, and lots of folks have gone through definitions of what are they, what they are not, and how they would change, how do those folks who actually look at them know that they have changed and say that they will act accordingly?

I know that I need to put x number of green books on a table, as they are in front of me here in the House, followed by three white books at the end. That is the regulation. Then somebody changes them, because it is an ambulatory piece of regulation. It is not static. We can take the three white books off the table and add two orange ones. New Democrats like orange, so we are going to put two orange ones down. Then we test everybody by asking them if they know how many green books are on the table and whether the three white ones are at the end. They would say yes, but they would fail, because we put two orange ones there. That means that they are out of office now, because they voted wrong, and the orange ones are going on the other side, which will probably happen in 2015, quite frankly. There was a change that nobody really knew about, and it was as simple as moving three books and putting two orange ones there.

What if we were to do that to food safety regulations? We have reciprocal agreements with our largest trading partner, the United States, and we have them with other countries around the world. They stand us well in a lot of different ways. We understand that we have a robust safety system in the agriculture sector at the producer level and when it comes to food processing and food handling. We accept that the United States also has a robust system. We accept as quid pro quo that what they do and what we do is good. We accept their standards and they accepts ours.

We get into this idea that we can change the regulations. Canada has regulations on our side and the United States has regulations on their side. We have similar regulations with our other trading partners. What if folks start changing food safety regulations? Most folks would say that they trust our American trading partner. They say that we do not have to worry about it. That country makes some changes that are probably okay and we will be fine. What happens if it is a country that is less trustworthy? I will not point the finger at any one country, but lots of us could identify a country where some of its food products have been less than safe, whether that be melamine in milk or other things that have happened.

What happens if those countries change a regulation and we change our regulation as well? Have we done our consumers justice by ensuring that the system is safe? We said that it was safe, and we changed the regulation, because it was an ambulatory regulation. We allowed it to be changed, because someone else changed it. We initially accepted a system that accepts other country's regulations. They changed one and we just accepted it, because we can do that now. No checks and balances are in place to make sure that we do not do that.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain asked a question of my colleague from York South—Weston. We already know that a number of regulatory changes have been made, even though there was no authority to make them. I think she said that there were 170. It was not once or twice. My colleagues on the other side who sit with her on that committee also know that this is the case. They heard the testimony. It was not an issue of somebody slipping up and forgetting. One hundred and seventy times is a pattern. That is not a mistake. That is not a matter of somebody forgetting and forgetting to call the minister. The House should have looked at the information. It should have gone through the process and it should have had its due course. It does not seem as if that is right.

If we are now, as my colleague has said, changing legislation to cover off that period, and those 170 plus go forward, how do we ensure the rights of this House and of parliamentarians to do the job people want us to do? Our role is not just overseeing the public purse to hold government to account. If regulatory changes are coming down from different boards or agencies within the federal government's domain, then surely we should have the right to ensure that we have input.

My colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla spoke quite eloquently about the idea that this is a non-partisan committee. It is made up of all kinds of folks who do not actually vote. It has a sense of building consensus. I am not too sure that the legislation says that. What happens if it becomes the executive that takes on that role and the rest of us do not have an oversight role? We are looking for answers to some of those questions.

That is why we want to send it to committee and look at amendments. Even though my friends across the way may not be happy about it, we want to send it to committee to try to make it better. They would be pleased with that rather than upset by the fact that we may not be saying the nicest of things about it. One would think that it is what they would want us to do, even though we are pointing out what we do not think works well. We will help them out, unlike my friends down at the end who do not want to vote to send it to committee and do not want to study it. That is their choice. Earlier I heard something about an open mind. I guess it is a closed mind on this particular issue, but that is the way it goes. They have decided against it, and that is okay. That is the great choice with democracy. One gets to decide whether to say yes or no. In this case, we will vote to send it to committee and study it. Ultimately, it is about democracy. It is about our right to have a say and have input with respect to legislation and its regulations.

As I said at the beginning, the regulations are quite often more important to people than the bill. Ironically, quite often, we get tied up looking at the bill. It is very important, no question. I would never want to suggest to the drafters of the legislation that somehow it is not important. There might be some parts of the legislation that the other side drafts that we would not find important or would vote against, and have. Budgets come to mind. However, regulations clearly have an impact on people's lives and that is what they run up against quite often, not the specifics of an act. That is where folks have difficulty.

I recognize that the other place exists, at least for now. If Canadians were allowed to vote probably over 70% would vote. We know that there is a constitutional requirement to have seven provinces and 50% of the population and so forth. We all know that. However, if we asked Canadians tomorrow if they wanted that place, they would want to get rid of it. My friends down at the far end still want to defend it in some sort of beleaguered way, since their leader said just two weeks ago that they just need better guys in there, not better people, which would include women. I can see where he is coming from when it comes to that. I certainly can tell him that I know a lot of women who were not pleased when he said that.

Bill S-12 started in the other place. One of my colleagues earlier talked about bills starting there or here, but they always have to come here. In my view, they all ought to start right here. There should be no bills starting with an “S”. They should all start with a “C”, and we should deal with them. This is the people's House. We will pass them if indeed that is the will of the people's House. We do not need the Senate to either rubber-stamp bills or throw them out. That is what they did to my good friend and leader Jack Layton. It did not even take the time to look at the bill. It tossed it aside. That is not democracy when the Senate tosses aside a bill that this House has passed twice.

If that is their attitude, not to mention the latest shenanigans that have gone on over their expenses, then it is time for them to go. It is long overdue. The time is long since past.

I said something months ago in the debate on what was the Senate reform bill, which seems to have disappeared. It has gone off to the Senate now, it seems. At the time I said this to my colleagues across the way, it just happened that one of Canada's favourite coffee houses, Tim Hortons, was having its roll up the rim contest at the same time as we were debating. I was standing right here, as a matter of fact, and I said, “Mr. Speaker, it is time to roll up the red carpet”, just like we roll up the rim.

Canadians will be the winners when we roll up the red carpet. Every single Canadian would not have to worry about rolling up the rim and maybe winning a donut or a coffee or a car. Not everybody gets one; I have rolled up many a rim and not gotten too many winning roll-ups, I must admit. However, without a doubt every Canadian would win if we rolled up the red carpet.

We would roll up that red carpet and wish them all well. I would be the first to stand in line, shake all their hands and wish them well. I would not have a problem doing that and I would do it with a smile on my face and a sincere thanks to many of them.

There are many good folks down there. Hugh Segal is a prime example. I think Senator Hugh Segal is a remarkable individual, a remarkable Canadian who does remarkable work. Unfortunately, it is time for Senator Segal to go.

Senator Kirby was a remarkable man down there as well, and he did remarkable work. He left on his own. Romeo Dallaire is also in the Senate. There are a great number of them. We have identified three, but over the years there have been a good number of them. We have given three examples; finding three is not bad for New Democrats.

However, we cannot find a New Democrat down there, probably because they do not want to go there.

I see my friends down at the end are a little restless. Clearly they are worried about the appointment that is never going to come, so the hour must be getting late. It truly must.

I would invite my colleagues down the way to come with me. In fact I invited my colleague from Winnipeg North last fall. He probably does not remember, but I invited him to come with me. Let me try to quote myself again. I invited my colleague to come arm in arm with me to walk down the hall together, roll up the red carpet, wish them a Merry Christmas and send them on their way, never to return. It is not Christmastime, but we could wish them happy holidays and ask them to not ever come back.

Oddly enough, if we had had regulations and had done it the way that this government suggested and that place was regulated, we could just have changed the regulations and gotten rid of them all. Unfortunately, we do not.

I have less than two minutes left. I really want to thank my colleague on the other side. I say this with great sincerity, because he has been the person who is really keen on this legislation. He has been up asking questions and he debated earlier. I give credit to the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. He actually answers.

He and I also have an affinity for wine. We have the two greatest wine regions in the country, Niagara being the finest and his being after that.

However, what I would like to say is that there are a whole pile of others on the other side who really have not been bothering with the legislation. They do not seem to want to bother with the legislation, so let me just say this to them: I would love to give them the opportunity to discuss their own bill. Therefore, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak tonight in support of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the statutory instruments regulations. New Democrats are supporting this bill at this stage, so it can go to committee to be clarified and big questions that are being asked can be answered.

I sometimes think that, in this Ottawa bubble, we use language and terms and put stuff out there, thinking the public is going to be able to understand what is being debated in the House of Common tonight and what MPs from across this country are here discussing at 8:45 p.m. until midnight. Being an English teacher, I always want to see something in the title that will give me a clue or some kind of a lead. If I were not here but sitting in my living room, I would be wondering what on earth members of Parliament are discussing tonight. That, to me, is a huge issue.

We talk about participatory democracy. We televise the glorious debates that go on in this most august House, and we know there are people across this country, who might only be my mother, the member's grandmother and somebody else's daughter, who are sitting at home glued to the TV set watching this. There are Canadians who care and watch CPAC. They watch because they really are engaged in the subjects we are discussing. I think we do them a disservice at times with the language we use and present. I worry about that at times, but I am sure we will talk about that at length.

As members have said previously, we are really talking about changes to either static or ambulatory—are those not wonderful words; one could write poetry with them—regulations that are buried in legislation that can be changed as a result of other laws or regulations being changed without ever coming to the House. That should give us a little concern, and I hope it does.

There are some facts and figures that were quite shocking even to me after being here for two years. This is a quote from the Justice Canada Federal Regulations Manual, 1998, page 3, in case any of you need bedtime reading. I am sure it will be great. This is what it states:

There are, at the federal level alone, approximately 3,000 regulations comprising over 30,000 pages, compared with some 450 statutes comprising about 13,000 pages. Furthermore, departments and agencies submit to the Regulations Section on average about 1,000 draft regulations each year, whereas Parliament enacts about 80 bills during the same period. The executive thus plays a major role in setting rules of law that apply to Canadian citizens.

Therein lies the rub.

As much as we are sending this bill on to the committee stage, when do the stark numbers really strike home? Whereas Parliament deals with 80 bills in a year—though we might be able to do more if going until midnight might be the new norm going into the fall as well, especially with all the time allocation and closure motions—when 1,000 regulatory changes are made or draft regulations presented, one really begins to worry about the state of our democracy.

What happens when changes are made by regulation, it invests so much power in the hands of the executive, in the hands of ministers and those regulatory changes sidestep parliamentary oversight and parliamentary debate, debate here, going to committee, being fine-tuned, coming back here and debated again. As parliamentarians that really should give us pause to stop and think about what our role is as parliamentarians.

There are some things that do make sense to be in regulation. For example, we would not want to spend weeks, months and years in here discussing what the interest rates should be at the Bank of Canada. That is sort of like an ambulatory regulatory change. Quite honestly I would not want to spend months and years discussing that.

However, on the other hand, there are regulatory changes that are made that I would want to discuss in the House because they could affect how Canadians live and work, how they retire and how they spend their leisure time. Therefore, we cannot think that this is just a technical document, that it is a housekeeping bill, purely technical. When we think of how it will be applied in the future and how many regulations are introduced each year and then get changed, sometimes at ministerial whim, we really have to worry. As the previous speaker said, there were lots of questions he was asked and he said “I just don't know the answer”. Reading the legislation, those things are not very clear at all.

As I was going through the legislation, it made me stop and think that sometimes what we consider as just a technical change, a little housekeeping, actually ends up impacting people's daily lives. I can remember from another life, when I was a teacher, when a provincial government decided it was going to do some housekeeping, get rid of a lot of the red tape around the identification and designation of students with special needs. What happened with that? Overnight after the regulatory changes were made and the red tape was gone, children who had very specific and legitimate diagnosed learning needs on a Friday, by the following Monday, they no longer had those needs. It gave the government reason not to fund them.

Even though at the time in British Columbia, many people welcomed getting rid of the red tape and a lot of stuff that surrounded this, but people did not realize that removing a word here, or a phrase there, was going to have such an impact on families of students with special needs.

Therefore, we have to be very careful. I know we are talking about international and national agreements and all of these regulations that change in other places, but one of these days what if there is a government that makes some changes and that automatically forces embedded changes right here that impact us and our everyday lives. I think we would be very concerned.

The other thing we are very concerned about is that we are a bilingual nation. It is embedded in our Constitution and yet we know a lot of these regulations are not available to the public in a bilingual manner, so we want to ensure they are there.

Let me step back a moment for I have misspoke.

What I am looking for in this document is an explicit guarantee that when these regulations are embedded, static, ambulatory, I do not care what the name is, they are there in both official languages. We want to ensure we have that. We also want to strengthen this document in ways that ensure there would not be that kind of view.

It is always good to look at accountability and specificity. We live in this electronic age or age of technology, as it is also called. I am not as familiar with the full range of technology, but I do know that today my children, grandchildren and the young people I know, as well as many young-at-heart retirees, spend much of their time on the computer and want that kind of access. They want to access the regulations, to read them, understand them and know their history. However, at the age of 19, I was quite happy to know none of what was in the backroom.

When my children or grandchildren do research now, and it is amazing to watch the twins, who are in grade eight, they go much deeper with it because everything is available to them on their computer. They ask the kind of questions I would not have asked at their age. Therefore, we have to ensure we make available to the public not just the change that has been made, but what it was like before and what the impact of that change would be. I do have some reservations that none of that will be discussed, and that should be concerning for all of us.

I hear a lot about accountability and transparency. We need all of that. This document came from a place that is not so popular for many these days. I know it has gone through some scrutiny and some changes have been made. However, we are supporting it so it can go to a parliamentary committee where it can receive microscopic scrutiny and where we also hope our colleagues across the aisle will not behave as they have at other committees I have attended. We have taken amendments that ministers have suggested and we thought we have had agreement on and suddenly they are not there. We hope that when they go to committee and our official opposition amendments are brought to that committee, that they will be considered on their merit and not rejected because they come from the official opposition.

A couple of my colleagues look aghast, as if that never happens. I can assure them that I have sat at committee and have seen that happen over and over again, even where we have had committee members say that it is a good amendment or have had ministers say that they know we have some concerns and that they will be quite happy to put this line in. Then when we put the criteria they have suggested in word for word it is suddenly opposed. It leaves us second-guessing what the real agenda is. We do worry about that as well.

There are quite a few issues I could bring up with respect to accountability and the ability to work together.

I have a great deal of concern around regulations. I was absolutely shocked as a member of Parliament at how much substantive change could be made to the laws of this land through changes to regulations. We have seen a huge transformation in the area of immigration that has impacted people. A lot of that work and a lot of those changes were never debated at a parliamentary committee. Nor did they come to this august body, the House of Commons, to be debated. These changes appeared on a website through a press conference. A minister can make all of these changes

At the same time as I support this legislation, I also have a deeply held concern over the subversion of democracy as more and more power is vested into the hands of ministers and the executive branch. I am not trying to take any shots at my colleagues in government, because I believe a lot of this was started by the party that sits in that corner right now, especially when I look at immigration.

Just take a look at what happened the Friday before we went back to our ridings for home week. On Friday afternoon, we received massive changes to family reunification. I sit as a vice-chair of the immigration committee, but we did not receive the changes there. I come to Parliament on a regular basis, but the changes were not discussed here. The changes were made in an announcement that was absolutely floundering. I have talked with people in communities who are just reeling from the changes, and they are so fundamental that they have put into question our commitment toward community-building and our commitments toward families. Yet all of those changes happened without any debate in the House.

The income requirement has been increased by 30% before somebody can sponsor his or her parent to move to Canada. Yet many people in the House and across the country have enjoyed the benefits of family reunification over the years. We all talk about the value of family.

Then we look at this. One in five Canadians is born outside of Canada.

We have introduced a lottery system for family reunification. We have told Canadians right across this great country that no matter where they come from, only 5,000 applications will be taken each year. I never looked at it until I was talking with a group in my riding and somebody said that it was like the lottery, that individuals would have to wait many years even to get in line to come into the country. By the way, when people apply, it is not a guarantee, that is when they can join the line. What have we done there?

I could go on at length about other things that have happened in this parliamentary democracy that shut down debate. We have seen them happen. There have been closures and time allocations. I hear rhetoric that this is all about accountability, that this is just about cleaning up things. Forgive me for thinking that we have suddenly moved to a new phase of parliamentary debate in the House.

As I said, we support this legislation going to committee. We hope the regulations will have the kind of transparency and the kind of language that the average person will comprehend.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill S-12, from that other place.

It is interesting, and it needs to be said, that the bill is here because the Senate, of course, has the power to generate bills itself. A lot of people are looking at the scandal that is going on right now and are thinking that we have to get rid of all of that so we can go back to the way we were when the Senate did not really get involved in things. However, the reality is that for any bill, this one or any other, to become law, it has to pass this place and it also has to pass through that place.

Given there are fewer seats in that place than there are in this place, the relative weight of a vote is worth more in the unelected, unaccountable Senate than it is in the elected, accountable House of Commons. Therefore, this is serious. The crisis is not just the scandal, it is the state of our democracy where we give equal if not greater authority under our Constitution to a body that has no moral, ethical or democratic legitimacy. That needs to be said every time we are dealing with the Senate of Canada.

It is not just the horrific headlines and scandals that we are seeing. It is the scandal that unelected people can vote on our laws, have to vote on our laws, and their weight is worth more than those of us on both sides of the House who are going to have to go back to our constituents and knock on doors to say, “I'm here to be accountable”. We will never hear a senator say, “I'm here to be accountable”. However, we have to live where we are now,

I recognize that my colleague for Winnipeg North took a different approach. It would have been nice to hear him say that he wished the Senate was abolished too so at least we would all be on the same starting page rather than just finding a nice way to avoid taking a position. Yes, the NDP is the only party that has taken a clear position to abolish the Senate. Of course, it is easier for us because we do not have the baggage of appointed senators leaning on our shoulders and whispering in our ears “don't hurt me”.

Our position remains clear. I think a growing number of Canadians are beginning to believe and understand that, as not a single province has a Senate left, we do not have to have a Senate. It is a choice of whether we want one or not. For 35 million people, give or take, there is a good argument that we do not need to duplicate the House of Commons.

When I was at Queen's Park in the legislative assembly, if there was a mistake made, just like when I was on city council, we brought in another bill to correct the mistake. It happens. The Senate is no guarantee that there are no mistakes or we would have a perfect country.

However, we are dealing with this bill now, which is actually very detailed and complex in terms of some of the references, especially for those of us who are not lawyers. We are all lawmakers, but we are not all lawyers, and we do not need to be.

One of the most important things that happens at the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is that there are elected people as well as very professional well-trained staff there to give advice, and so one does not have to be a lawyer. Sometimes, every now and then we get lawyers, and because they are lawyers, they then believe that their opinion, of course, is as good as any other lawyer and they engage in that debate. Whereas us mere mortals who are not lawyers will want to hear all the legal arguments as we do not have a vested interest in the outcome other than the best law that we can have. Having said that, there is certainly nothing strange about having lawyers become lawmakers, but a good mix is best.

My other experience with regulations is in two areas.

First, as a former provincial minister, I dealt with regulations. In the briefings with the legal department and policy people, I dealt with the essence of what was there. One does not debate as a minister, unless one is a lawyer. I certainly did not engage in a debate about what language should be in the bill when it came to a technical term, especially for a legal process. However, I would always pay attention if there were other learned people who felt differently, because it is my judgment my constituents elected me to bring here, not my skills as someone who necessarily can sit down with a blank piece of paper and write a law.

The other experience I had is that I am one of those lucky MPs in this place who was not only able to sit on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations but was a vice-chair. Yes, people do not hear me reference it a lot. There is not much I can pull from that experience in speeches. I think that is the first time in 10 years I have been able to use it.

It was a fascinating committee. Again, if someone is a lawyer who is excited by lawyer things, the more that person will be excited at these meetings. It is great to see the professionalism when people care that much about where a comma goes or whether something should be a subclause of this or that. It is great, because it shows a part of law-making that Canadians do not see when they turn on the TV. Yet it is crucial, particularly when there is an opportunity to travel to other countries that are not as strong as we are economically or democratically. Believe me, many of them would give their right arms to have a committee anything like this so that the kind of detail they want in their law-making and regulations is there. They envy us. I did not always feel that I was in an enviable position when I was sitting on the committee, but when we look at it in a bigger context, we are indeed very fortunate.

As my other colleagues have mentioned, much of its work is to ensure, from a legal point of view, that the English and French texts say the same thing. All of us here, unilingual or bilingual, know that there can be huge differences in meaning with just one or two words or a phrase. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how amplified that is when we are talking about legal documents such as regulations.

Of course, in recent times, we have had other languages brought into play because of the issue of incorporation by reference. There are languages other than French and English that will find a way into our laws. There needs to be translation. It is hard to believe that there would not be some confusion and problems going from another language to French and English such as we have going from French to English and back and forth. Therefore, there are some serious issues here to be dealt with.

There were matters that came before that committee that were decades old in their lack of resolution. Mr. Speaker, I see you nodding your head. I assume that you have been on the committee. You know that sometimes there will be an issue that in 10 years has not been resolved. However, by the end of the meeting, the committee will have dealt with something that is 22 years old. It is amazing. From a practical point of view, we wonder how on earth it could be so important that we are still dealing with it but not so important that it had to be resolved 22 years ago. That is part of the excitement for those who are in the law. I see the Speaker, who is a lawyer, smiling but shaking his head no, so I am not sure what trouble I am in. I will plough ahead nonetheless.

The work is not exactly headline-making, but it really is important. I will go so far as to say that since we have to live with that other place, it allows us the ability, through a joint committee, to bring out any synergies that are there. That deserves to be said.

There is one more thing I want to mention before I get to the specifics of the bill. There is another area where regulations, in my opinion, should be on the radar of most Canadians in terms of understanding how this place works and how laws are really made.

I watched for many years how former Ontario premier Mike Harris would take many things that were already in legislation.

As members know, legislation can only be amended by Parliament. Regulations, on the other hand, do not require Parliament. That is at the core of what we are dealing with here. It is these automatic changes that come from referencing other agreements outside of Canada, such as international agreements or national agreements from other countries, where there is a reference in our regulations. As they make changes, those changes come in and are automatically updated. At least that is my understanding of one of the key issues in Bill S-12.

What we went through in Ontario is worth mentioning, because it was very scary. Many times, but not every time, when that Conservative government was amending legislation, it would often take things out of the legislation and put them in the regulations.

For instance, if there is a law that says that the Government of Ontario, or any province, has the right to set speed limits on highways, those speed limits will be set by regulation so that the law itself does not list every single highway in the province. The government would not have to go back and make a legislative change, with first reading, second reading, third reading, and in this case, all the way over to the Senate. In Queen's Park we did not have that problem. We dealt with it, as elected people, ourselves.

The regulations would then go to cabinet. They could modify or set a speed limit on a highway. That is how legislation and regulations are used in a healthy, democratic way. The principles are set out, and then on some of the details that are going to be different all over, regulations deal with them. There is still a procedure. It still involves the cabinet and the government, but it is a lot quicker and the whole House is not tied up changing one area of Highway 401 to lower the speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour. That makes sense.

However, and I am using this hypothetically, the government would then state that all laws pertaining to the highway that are under the constitutional jurisdiction of the province shall be dealt with by regulation. That sounds like a small change, but it is huge. It goes from having the right to change speeds without debate and to inform cabinet afterwards to doing anything on those highways, as long as there is constitutional jurisdiction. It never has to come to the House. That is not healthy. That is not a strong democracy.

Again, we are into areas here that sound very dry, but they matter. It is our job, of course, as the elected people, to roll up our sleeves and do this work.

We in the official opposition are comfortable enough with some of the goals set out to allow this to go to committee. However, at committee, there needs to be a great deal more scrutiny of this bill. We are hoping that this is exactly what will happen.

If I might, I would just mention this quote. It can never be said enough. It comes from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. They dealt with this issue in 2007.

Of course, incorporation by reference also gives rise to concerns relating to accessibility to the law, in that although incorporated material becomes part of the regulations, the actual text of that material must be found elsewhere. Such concerns are heightened where material is incorporated “as amended from time to time”, in that members of the public may have difficulty ascertaining precisely what the current version is at a particular point in time. Where open incorporation by reference is to be permitted, provisions should also be put in place to require the regulation-maker to ensure that the current version of an incorporated document is readily available to the public, as are all previous versions that were previously incorporated.

I believe it was a colleague from my caucus who made this point. Given the fact there are going to be these changes to other pieces of legislation, how would one who looks at the regulations know that they are not in the midst of being changed? How much guarantee would they have that the language they are looking at is the law that would be applied to them? In Canada, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Again, this is not something I likely would have thought of, because I would not necessarily, as a rule, be the one to research the original documentation. If we were at committee, there would be staff doing it. Even if we were in our offices, we would ask our staff if we needed that level of detail. It is also not something I would raise as an issue, because I do not use it every day in this way.

Once it is spelled out and brought to the attention of any reasonable Canadian, we would understand that this committee not only had members of the government and opposition but had members from both places. I am assuming that it was unanimous and was supported by the entire committee. That is an assumption on my part. It had to matter, otherwise the politics of the day would have kicked in and there would not have been agreement.

I will tell members that there are a lot of very professional staff there. It is amazing to see the calibre of people who are in the room at these meetings. It is truly impressive. We are all very fortunate to have public servants with this capacity. It is obviously the staff who are usually the ones to recommend this kind of language. This matters. This matters from a practical point of view, which is what I can apply from my experience as a law-maker. What I am hearing loud and clear from people who understand this from a legal point of view and from a detailed policy point of view is that this matters.

I heard some reference to international business investment. Contrary to what the government likes to pretend, we care about those things. I believe that everyone in this House does, because it means jobs for our citizens, our constituents. These things need to be looked at.

We cannot really go into that level of detail here in the House. That is why we have a committee system.

Our position today as the official opposition is that we are prepared to give enough support to send it to committee. However, we will reserve judgment on that point, because we never know how it is going to go.

I would wrap up by saying that this is one of those times when things that seem not to be important, because they do not make headlines, really are. I am hopeful that we will see it sent to committee so that the kind of work that needs to be done on this important bill can be done and it can be brought back here for our final debate and determination as to whether we want to make it a law.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague has a lot to say. It is unfortunate that he gets only 10 or 20 minutes to speak in the House. I have a question for him about Bill S-12.

This bill originated in the Senate, a chamber that has recently been the subject of a lot of controversy. My constituents are outraged that senators are not elected or accountable and that some often misuse public funds. This happened with a number of Conservative senators, but also senators from another party.

Could my colleague tell us where his party stands on the Senate? Does he think it should be reformed, or should we abolish this outdated institution?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to address this bill. I have never had the honour of sitting on the statutory instruments regulations committee. It sounds as if it might be a very interesting committee. I do find it most fascinating that the government has chosen to use this particular bill, given that we are allocated four or five hours, which is probably more hours of debate than for many other pieces of legislation. However, at the end of the day, it is going to be interesting. I suspect that we might see differing opinions. We in the Liberal Party have a great deal of concern with regard to this bill. We cannot see ourselves supporting it at this time, and we will have to wait and see what happens at committee stage and see if the government is going to be able to address the issues.

We were talking about a different bill, Bill C-475, during private members' business, and it dealt with personal information. A government member stood up and made a comment on how wonderful it would be to have Bill C-12 debated, given that all sides of the House seemed to be supportive of Bill C-12. The member made the suggestion that he would even be prepared to see that bill debated right away. Maybe if the Conservatives recognize the importance of that bill, they might also want to call that; the last time it was brought before the House being back in September 2011. We will have to wait and see.

Another concern that was raised was in the form of questions that I asked both Conservative speakers in regard to the whole issue of the French language. I come from the province of Manitoba, and the French language issue in terms of laws and regulations was a critically important ruling that came from the Supreme Court of Canada. The ruling reflected on many of Manitoba's laws and, because of not having appropriate translation, the court had virtually given Manitoba a time schedule to pass all sorts of other regulations and laws in order to keep them in effect. It gave us a bit of a sunset clause in terms of needing to pass this in order to comply. Otherwise, we would have had a series of laws, whether provincial legislation or regulation, that would have become void. Therefore, we take the issue very seriously in terms of some of the things, and that is the reason I posed the questions.

In looking at Bill S-12, there are a couple of things that are really important to note. Quite often, the intent might be clear. Individuals, whether members of Parliament or those assisting in trying to create legislation or regulation, will be fairly clear on what it is they are trying to accomplish, the actual intent. The real challenge is to try to take that intent that is being expressed and put it into words, and in our case also to ensure that the translation is in essence saying the same thing whether in English or in French. That is a very important point.

As an example, one of the first issues that came up was related to Air Canada. It was an important issue, through which I suspect many individuals who might be listening in on the debate might get a better sense of the importance of converting intent into appropriate words. I recall the Air Canada Public Participation Act that was brought in a number of years ago. There is absolutely no doubt that, if we look at the debates and some of the discussions that took place in the committee, we would find that the intent that was being spoken was that communities like Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal would be guaranteed their overhaul maintenance positions.

This literally translated into thousands of jobs in Winnipeg, hundreds of jobs that were in essence guaranteed in that law. That was the intent.

If we read the legislation that is there today, I think most Canadians, in reading it, would come to the same conclusion to which I came. I raised that issue shortly after being elected back in December 2011. When I raised it, it was to challenge the government. It was to tell the Prime Minister that we had a law that said these overhaul maintenance bases were supposed to be guaranteed. Air Canada was legally obligated to maintain those bases.

The Prime Minister and the government responded by saying that this was not necessarily their interpretation. Apparently, the government found a lawyer somewhere who said that this was not the case, that there was no legal obligation.

It did not matter what we attempted, whether it was through postcards or petitions. Many different stakeholders and individuals read the law and said that the law was pretty clear.

I raise that because at the end of the day is it very important. When we think of a regulation or a law, we often talk about what we are hoping to achieve by passing it, but what is written down on that piece of paper and translated is what counts.

As legislators, we have to take that responsibility very seriously. In recognizing what this legislation is doing, it is offloading a great deal of responsibility. I know the record will clearly demonstrate that this has not necessarily been a government that wants to take responsibility. By allowing this legislation to pass as it is, we need to recognize that there will be more laws being put into place with less scrutiny from the House of Commons.

That is one of the effects that the passage of this bill will have. We need to be very clear on that point.

Another profound impact the legislation will have is in regard to the whole idea of incorporation by reference and what will happen in regard to that secondary language, whether it happens to be English or French. We are in a bilingual nation and there is an expectation. I will provide a little more comment on that in a few minutes.

The legislative summary that was provided by the Library of Parliament had some interesting information that is worth expressing. One point deals with the amount of regulation versus laws in terms of numbers of pages. It is interesting to note, and this is a quote from the parliamentary library, “There are, at the federal level alone, approximately 3,000 regulations comprising over 30,000 pages”. Compare that to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 450 statutes, which comprise roughly 13,000 pages.

Furthermore, departments and agencies submit to the regulations section, on average, about 1,000 draft regulations each year, whereas Parliament enacts about 80 bills during the same period. The executive therefore plays a major role in setting the rules of law that apply to Canadian citizens.

What we will find is that the number of laws in comparison to regulations is decreasing as we rely more on regulations. When we go into or finish second reading and then it goes to committee stage, how often do we hear from government representatives or policy analysts who say “this is what the clause says and further explanation will be provided via regulation?” We hear a lot of that.

Why then should we be concerned? We have to be careful that we recognize the importance of laws versus regulations and the incorporation of references into regulations.

We start off with our Constitution and our Charter of Rights. These are things that no one would question. We then go on to laws that would be passed in the House of Commons, then to regulations. Finally, we would go to the incorporation of reference.

Look at each stage and how difficult it is to change the Constitution. We do not see too much public will or interest in changing the Constitution. In terms of legislation, the same principle applies. There is a process of changing legislation. There is first reading, second reading, committee, third reading, the Senate and finally royal assent. There is a great deal of scrutiny that takes place.

What about regulations? There is a legal examination and registration that have to take place. Ultimately, publication takes place in the Canada Gazette.

We can see the difference between them. Each level has a different sense of accountability or process that we have to follow. If we take just the one component, the legal examination, the examination for the passage of legislation will come through here. There are all sorts of responsibilities that all members, particularly critics, caucuses, vested interest groups and stakeholders of a wide variety, have in ensuring there is some form of due diligence and a sense of accountability.

What about the regulation? When it comes to legal examination, we know there is an obligation for the Clerk of the Privy Council. There have been four things that were cited again, dealing specifically with this bill, that came from the Library of Parliament. Those four things in passing or ensuring that there is some form of legal examination of that regulation.

The first is, “(a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made”. Another way of saying it is that if we want to change or pass a regulation, we want to ensure it is in compliance with the legislation or a current law that has been passed by the House of Commons.

The second is, “(b) it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made”. That would be something that would obviously make a whole lot of sense. After all, it cannot override a law, like a law cannot override our Constitution.

The third is, “(c) it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights”. We are asking that the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with others, ensure that it does not contradict some of those basic rights. Before, if it was a law, it would be something where members, and in particular the Minister of Justice, would play a much stronger role in ensuring the compliance in that regard.

The fourth is, “(d) the form and draftsmanship of the proposed regulations are in accordance with established standards”. This is something where one would expect our legislative counsel and others that assist us to ensure the wording was correct. That is why at the beginning I commented on the importance of wording, that in fact one can be very clear orally what the intent is, but we have to ensure that this intent is put into proper words because it is the wording that is of critical importance.

I would like to quote from the Library of Parliament because I believe it is stated quite well in terms of what specifically, when we think of regulations, is actually at stake in dealing with Bill S-12. I quote directly from the report that has been provided to us from the Library of Parliament. It states:

When Parliament confers a power to make regulations, the regulation-maker usually exercises this power by drafting the text of the regulation to be enacted. The regulation-maker may also decide that the contents of an existing document are what should be used in the regulation it intends to enact. One way to make the contents of such a document part of the text of the regulation would be to reproduce it word for word in the regulation. Alternatively, the regulation-maker can simply refer to the title of the document in the regulation. The contents of the document will then be said to be “incorporated by reference”. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is to write the words of the incorporated document into the regulation just as if it had actually been reproduced word for word. The incorporation by reference of an existing document is no more than a drafting technique, and a regulation-maker need not be granted any specific power in order to resort to this technique. This is referred to as “closed” or “static” incorporation by reference.

We need to be very careful with that. When we talk about international standards, what we are really saying is that incorporation by referencing says that we are going to take a third party standard, whether international, provincial or it does not even have to be a government agency. It could be any sort of a third party and it could be a one paragraph document or it could be a 500-page document.

I see my time has run out. Hopefully there will be a question and I will be able to conclude my comment on that aspect of it.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations that will continue to monitor when these changes come forward. It is important to know as well, as he mentioned, the ambulatory versus the static or the static versus dynamic. There are certain statutes or laws where certainly having an ambulatory reference would not be appropriate. That is clearly laid out here.

The Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations will continue to monitor these sorts of situations with able staff and members of Parliament. It is a unique committee that operates on consensus with the opposition. The member can take great comfort in the fact that his colleagues, along with the government side, will continue to ensure Canadians are protected through regulations, and we would use the incorporation by reference found in Bill S-12 for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He currently serves on the scrutiny of regulations committee, and he is doing a great job there. His presentation tonight was very precise as well.

There has been a lot of discussion on the subject of Bill S-12, particularly on the importance of certainty to business. Obviously, this is a legislative tool that the government and parliamentarians currently use, and this would be codified. However, there are other benefits—for example, helping to harmonize international agreements—and there could be standards that allow Canadian enterprise to grow. Could the member share his thoughts about some of the positive aspects of this bill?

Many members tonight have said that the bill is quite technical. Therefore, if the member could point out some of the benefits that come along with this piece of legislation, I would appreciate it.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the official opposition House leader, who I think has proved that a member of Parliament should be able to rise and give a 20-minute speech on anything at any time. He certainly did that well. I know his constituents and mine are seized with this issue and are glad that we are debating it here today. I am thankful that there is some time before the nightly playoff hockey will start so people can watch both this debate and that, later on.

I am pleased to speak about the incorporation by reference in regulations act, Bill S-12. The bill deals with the regulatory drafting technique. Essentially, it is about when federal regulators can or cannot use the technique of incorporation by reference. Bill S-12 has been studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and has been reported without amendment to the House for consideration.

The technique of incorporation by reference is currently used in a wide range of federal regulations. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a regulated area in which incorporation by reference is not used to some degree. Bill S-12 is about securing the government's access to a drafting technique that has already become essential to the way government regulates. It is also about leading the way internationally in the modernization of regulations. More particularly, Bill S-12 responds to concerns expressed by the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations about when incorporation by reference can be used. Incorporation by reference has already become an essential tool that is widely relied upon to achieve the objectives of the government.

The Senate committee considering the bill has heard that it is also an effective way to achieve many of the current goals of the cabinet directive on regulatory management. For example, regulations that use this technique are effective in facilitating intergovernmental co-operation and harmonization, a key objective of the regulatory co-operation council established by the Prime Minister and President Obama. By incorporating the legislation of other jurisdictions with which harmonization is desired or by incorporating standards developed internationally, regulations can minimize duplication, an important objective of the red tape reduction commission, which issued its report earlier this year. The result of Bill S-12 would be that regulators have the option of using this drafting technique in regulations aimed at achieving these objectives.

Incorporation by reference is also an important tool for the government to help Canada comply with its international obligations. Referencing material that is internationally accepted rather than attempting to reproduce the same rules in the regulations also reduces technical differences that create barriers to trade, something that Canada is required to do under the World Trade Organization's technical barriers to trade agreement.

Incorporation by reference is also an effective way to take advantage of the use of the expertise of standards-writing bodies in Canada. Canada has a national standards system that is recognized all over the world. Incorporation of standards, whether developed in Canada or internationally, allows for the best science and the most accepted approach in areas that affect people on a day-to-day basis to be used in regulations. Indeed, reliance on this expertise is essential to ensuring access to technical knowledge across the country and around the world.

Testimony by witnesses from the Standards Council of Canada before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made it clear how extensively Canada already relies on international and national standards. Ensuring that regulators continue to have the ability to use ambulatory incorporation by reference in their regulations means that Canadians can be assured that they are protected by the most up-to-date technology. Incorporation by reference allows for the expertise of the Canadian national standards system and the international standards system to form a meaningful part of the regulatory tool box.

Another important aspect of Bill S-12 is that it allows for the incorporation by reference of rates and indices such as the consumer price index or the Bank of Canada rates, important elements in many regulations. For these reasons and more, ambulatory incorporation by reference is an important instrument available to regulators when they are designing their regulatory initiatives.

However, Bill S-12 also strikes an important balance in respect of what may be incorporated by reference by limiting the types of documents that can be incorporated by the regulation-maker. Also, only the versions of such a document as it exists on a particular day can be incorporated when the document is produced by the regulation-maker only. This is an important safeguard against circumvention of the regulatory process.

Parliament's ability to control the delegation of regulation-making powers continues, as does the oversight of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We expect the standing joint committee will continue its work in respect of the scrutiny of regulations at the time they were first made, as well as in the future. We expect that the standing joint committee will indeed play an important role in ensuring the use of this technique continues to be exercised in the way that Parliament has authorized.

One of the most important aspects of this bill relates to accessibility. The Minister of Justice recognized this in his opening remarks to the Senate standing committee during its consideration of this bill. Bill S-12 would not only recognize the need to provide a solid legal basis for the use of this regulatory drafting technique, but it would also expressly impose in legislation an obligation on all regulators to ensure that the documents they incorporate are accessible.

While this has always been something that the common law required, this bill clearly enshrines this obligation in legislation. There is no doubt that accessibility should be part of this bill. It is essential that documents that are incorporated by reference be accessible to those who are required to comply with them. This is an important and significant step forward in this legislation. The general approach to accessibility found in Bill S-12 will provide flexibility to regulatory bodies to take whatever steps might be necessary to make sure that the diverse types of material from various sources are in fact accessible.

In general, material that is incorporated by reference is already accessible. As a result, in some cases no further action on the part of the regulation-making authority will be necessary. For example, provincial legislation is already generally accessible. Federal regulations that incorporate provincial legislation will undoubtedly allow the regulator to meet the requirement to ensure that the material is accessible.

Sometimes accessing the document through the standard organization itself will be appropriate. It will be clear that the proposed legislation will ensure the regulated community will have access to the incorporated material with a reasonable effort on their part. It is also important to note that standards organizations, such as the Canadian Standards Association, understand the need to provide access to incorporated standards.

By recognizing the changing landscape of the Internet, this bill creates a meaningful obligation on regulators to ensure accessibility while still allowing for innovation, flexibility and creativity. Bill S-12 is intended to solidify the government's access to a regulatory drafting technique that is essential to modern and responsive regulation. It also recognizes the corresponding obligation that regulators must meet when using this tool.

This bill strikes an important balance that reflects the reality of modern regulation while ensuring the appropriate protections are enshrined in law. No person can suffer a penalty or sanction if the relevant material was not accessible to them.

This proposal will provide express legislative authority for the use of this technique in the future and confirm the validity of existing regulations incorporating documents in a manner that is consistent with that authority.

We have many years of successful experience with the use of ambulatory and static incorporation by reference in legislation at the federal level. This knowledge will be useful in providing guidance in the future. There is also every indication that the use of this technique will be essential to implementing regulatory modernization initiatives here in Canada, in conjunction with our regulatory partners in the United States and around the world.

To conclude, enactment of this legislation is the logical and necessary next step to securing access in a responsible manner to incorporation by reference in regulation. I encourage members to support this legislative proposal and recognize the important step forward that it contains.