Debates of Oct. 2nd, 1995

Canada Transportation Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 6 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

On the Order: Government Orders:

April 26, 1995-The Minister of Justice-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-84, an act to provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Regulations Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-84, an act to provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs following first reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed make that motion. I say that Bill C-84, which is intended as a new regulations act, should go to the committee, and members of this Parliament should have the opportunity, before the House decides in principle on this approach to regulation, to discuss its terms.

It may seem that the legislation that governs the making of regulations in government is a technical or a dry subject, but in fact it will surprise some of the members to know that indeed there is a great deal of interest in this subject. There is a great deal of interest among Canadians because that process, the process by which subordinate legislation is made, has a direct effect on the way business is done in this country, on the productivity, on the competitiveness of business.

May I say that this proposed legislation is intended to increase the productivity and the competitiveness of our economy, which this government believes it will do.

I also observe this motion and indeed the regulations act, which is being sent to committee after first reading, is another good example of the value of Standing Order 73(1) of the House of Commons, which was sponsored by my hon. colleague the House leader at the opening of this Parliament.

The new regulations act to which I speak today is intended to replace the Statutory Instruments Act, which for almost 25 years now has governed the Canadian system of making regulations. Bill C-84 offers important improvements to that outdated piece of legislation, intending to streamline and reduce delays in the process by which regulations are made at the federal level in Canada.

The legislative reform is an important part of the regulatory reform, part of the innovative economy initiative of my colleague, the Minister of Industry. This legislation is intended to support the bold, innovative, imaginative measures he is taking to strengthen Canada's economy.

There can be no doubt about the need for change in the process by which regulations are made. Problems are created by the current regulatory process. They have been identified many times in the past. There have been repeated calls for legislative improvements, most recently during the government-wide regulatory reviews of 1992-93.

Permit me to touch on some of the key elements of this bill. First, it is intended to provide a simpler and more principled definition of what a regulation is in modern government so that the scope of the act will be more clearly understood, so that its application will be more readily determined.

Second, an effort has been made in drafting Bill C-84 to use plainer language, to more directly communicate its meaning to those persons who use it and who invoke the process.

Third, the statute divides regulatory documents into different categories and provides for different kinds of review, depending upon what category a document falls into.

Fourth, it provides for a revised exemption power that will now be subject to an express public interest consideration.

Fifth, Bill C-84 codifies and I believe clarifies the law by expressly authorizing incorporation by reference, whether on international or other standards that are intended to be included in Canadian regulations, always subject to an express requirement that whatever is incorporated by reference should be made readily

accessible to members of the public or any other interested party who wishes to have them.

Sixth, Bill C-84 contemplates a modernized process allowing for the creation of an electronic registry of regulations while at the same time maintaining government accountability for regulations through parliamentary scrutiny.

We know that in order to reform the Statutory Instruments Act, a balance must be struck between the interests of the various stakeholders. The new legislation is to streamline and expedite the making of regulations. Yet, this will be done without overlooking the requirement for advance notification, public representations and a thorough parliamentary scrutiny of any related mandatory legislation.

That is why I believe it is important to note that the changes sought by the Regulations Act are, for the most part, material amendments that leave the essence of the current process unchanged. These amendments are designed to remove ambiguities, simplify steps as required and generally modernize the regulatory process.

But first and foremost the purpose of the new Regulations Act is to maintain and strengthen the objectives and basic principles of the Statutory Instruments Act, which contains the legal safeguards required to make binding regulations. These objectives include the rule of law, transparency, the publication of regulations and the monitoring of the executive by Parliament as part of its legislative power.

While the Statutory Instruments Act has generally served Canadians well over the last two decades, over time the regulatory process has come to be viewed both inside and beyond government as an impediment to the timely and efficient making and repeal of federal regulations. The current operation of the Statutory Instruments Act makes it difficult for federal regulators to respond in a timely manner to changing needs with new and improved regulations because the regulatory process is too cumbersome and time consuming. This is of concern to all Canadians, particularly Canadian business because these regimes are not well tailored to evolving circumstances.

Unnecessary delays in modernizing and improving regulatory schemes can also reduce our ability to respond quickly and effectively to new developments in areas such as health and safety, environmental regulation, international trade or federal-provincial relations. Outdated and inappropriate regulatory schemes can also undermine respect for the law, economic growth and competitiveness. They can also complicate the working relationship between the government and the private sector.

We believe that the new act will improve the capacity of government to respond quickly and effectively to changing circumstances, reduce the overall volume of regulations and provide for an expedited process. It will allow us to incorporate important documents by reference. It will do all of that without reducing the role of Parliament in overseeing government as it makes subordinate law.

In moving today that this proposed statute now go to committee for consideration, I express the government's conviction that it represents a significant improvement in Canadian law. I know it will receive the usual balanced and insightful commentary from my colleagues in other parties. I look forward enthusiastically to my own involvement in that important process.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-84.

First of all, let me say that this bill will effect changes in more than 60 acts or bills currently before this House. Its passage will therefore have a very major impact on federal legislation.

Bill C-84 seeks to replace the old Statutory Instruments Act with a new Regulations Act completely consolidated and revised. Like the act it seeks to replace, the bill sets out the principles and administrative procedures that will govern the four steps involved in drafting new regulations: preparation, passage, enactment and publication of regulations passed under federal statutes.

The bill also confirms the reviewing power of the Standing Joint Committee for the scrutiny of Regulations, ensures better control by Parliament and maintains governmental responsibility over the regulatory process.

In short, Bill C-84 provides, first, a simpler definition of "regulation", second, an expedited process for regulations that do not require legal review, third, a revision of the bases for exempting regulations from the regulatory process, and, fourth, a modernization of the regulatory process by providing for consultation, registration and publication by electronic means.

Bill C-84 therefore aims at modernizing the current act and correcting the problems encountered with the present regulatory process.

I will now review some major items in Bill C-84 that I find very important. First of all, the definition of "regulation" is simpler and more principled than the current term "statutory instruments" found in Section 2. This legislation also specifies that regulations

also include all kinds of lists and guidelines, putting an end to an ambiguity in the current act.

It seems also that publication by electronic means will shortly become an addition to regular printing of the Canada Gazette , but it might be possible for the government to eliminate the printed copy of the Canada Gazette by publishing only by electronic means.

In this case, why not include a reference to the printing, even though that might involve limited editions? Bill C-84 eliminates the requirement of printing a specific number of copies of regulations during the regulatory process, allowing for substantial savings, even in the absence of electronic means.

One can only wonder why goals in the areas of security, health and the environment are specifically mentioned like in Bill C-62. Is it yet another backhanded way of intruding into provincial jurisdictions? Criteria concerning the use of this exemption power of the governor in council are not crystal clear.

Why not extend the prohibition in clause 64 concerning the Defence Production Act to other federal statutes with a significant impact on health and the environment such as big economic development projects like pipelines, Hibernia, nuclear plants and so on? To be able to answer that question, we need to have the complete list of exempted regulations and of other regulations that could be exempted later on if Bill C-84 is passed.

It also seems unthinkable that clause 11(4) should provide that no regulation is invalid because it was not published. We need more openness in this government. Regulations have force of law and should always be published in the Canada Gazette . This bill does provide that no penalty can be imposed for a violation of unpublished regulations. We think that people in Canada and Quebec have the absolute right to know which regulations are in force. Why make regulations if there is no penalty when they are disobeyed?

Sometimes, groups or businesses will find out about regulations only when the quarterly index is published.

As a matter of fact, this bill introduces a publication and distribution system for regulations that can be tailored to fit every single case. Clause 15 should simply be dropped, in our opinion.

This new regulatory process would allow the federal government to withdraw gradually from regulating certain industries through the incorporation by reference of private or international standards.

Clause 16(5) provides that an amendment made by a business or a foreign government could have force of law in Canada as soon as it is announced. This in spite of the fact that the amendment is not published as a regulation in The Canada Gazette or in both official languages, particularly in French where American standards are concerned. Considering the context of free trade in North America and eventually in both Americas, this may jeopardize the position of the French language.

The purpose of having a regulation incorporate material by reference is twofold. First of all, to remove the requirement for the federal government to regulate every aspect of the sector concerned. Second, to take advantage of the expertise of Canadian, American and international organizations that set standards which, sooner or later, will have to be adopted by Canadian industry. In fact, industry is being asked to regulate itself. Incorporation by reference means that standards can be updated directly by the agencies or governments concerned, while the federal government in Canada is not obliged to adopt them.

This "privatization" and "internationalization" of business and industrial regulations, probably on the basis of American and international standards, opens the door to the adoption of standards that are drafted exclusively in English.

Even if the code is available in French, in accordance with clause 16(2), what assurance do we have that subsequent amendments will be published in French by the American association or, simultaneously, by the Canadian regulatory authority? Clause 17 on accessibility is not, in our view, a sufficient guarantee in this regard.

It is possible to conclude that a number of documents incorporated by reference in a regulation with force of law in Canada will be neither published nor available in French from the regulatory authority. Will Quebecers have access to regulations wholly in French only after Quebec attains sovereignty? One must wonder.

We are also proposing an amendment to clause 25 in the form of a new paragraph (3) requiring the government to submit the draft regulations to the regulatory committee at the same time as it tables its bills in the House of Commons.

Also, subparagraph 26( g )(i) authorizing the making of secret regulations concerning the conduct of federal-provincial affairs must be struck out. Bill C-84 is suggesting here that provinces, like foreign countries, are enemies of the federal government. This same precaution probably does not even exist in European legislation for the Fifteen.

How can an atmosphere of harmony, consensus and co-operation between federal and provincial governments be created when even regulations call for secrecy in federal-provincial affairs? Is such a clause necessary in international relations today? We feel that the defence of Canada is the only part of 26( g ) fully justified today.

Bill C-84 uses the French expression "autorité réglementante" and there is no such word in French as "réglementante". The expression that should be used instead is "autorité réglementaire" to designate the institutions, departments, organizations and

commissions with regulatory authority, in keeping with the definition found in the 1990 edition of

Trésor de la langue française.

In conclusion, we agree that Bill C-84 is modernizing the existing regulatory process provided by the Regulations Act and deserves our support, but let us support it only after the government has adopted the many amendments we have mentioned today.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in debate with my colleagues on Bill C-84. This is not a discussion on criminology so it will be a nice articulation of the points today.

Bill C-84 is an act to provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

He is a legend in his own mind.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot stand up in the House-

[The Speaker]

After hearing those opening remarks, I had to check to see it was really the member for Fraser Valley West. I invite him to debate.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

He has your number.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty bad when even the Speaker has your number.

I want to say at the outset that it is the Reform Party's intention to oppose this bill, not because of the legislative intent of the bill, but instead we oppose the bill because of what we feel are substantive flaws in the act put forward by the Minister of Justice. In addition, there is equal weight in our opposition to this document because of clauses which are not in this act.

Make no mistake. Reform members on this side of the House are just as intent to see that the regulatory process in Canada functions in an efficient manner. Clearly, this bill constitutes the other half of the government's effort at regulatory reform.

In fairness and in stark contrast with the conclusions reached concerning Bill C-62, the government has put forward a bill which attempts to tidy up the regulatory process and replace the Statutory Instruments Act. Yet for the reasons which follow, this initiative, like so many others in the Liberal red book, is long on promise and short on substance.

To begin with, this act should have been forwarded to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and not, as has been done, to another government operations committee. You need not take my word for it. It should be self-evident to even the most partisan of members that the words "parliamentary scrutiny of regulations" contained in the act's title should have made referral academic. Indeed, the hon. government member from Scarborough-Rouge River said as much in committee on May 18.

My esteemed colleagues on the government side of the House might argue that no precedent or provision exists for such a referral. However, in a letter from the committee clerk to members of the scrutiny of regulations committee there are indeed well documented procedures. In addition, Standing Order 73(1) would allow the government to make such a referral.

With all due respect, the fact that it was not referred to the appropriate committee leads me to believe there may be something untoward in the government's intention on the bill in the first place.

Also, I refer to the fact that the Reform Party would oppose this bill for what it is not. In this case and as members from the scrutiny of regulations committee will point out, there is no statutory disallowance procedure put forward.

One way Parliament ensures that regulations are reviewed is through the scrutiny of regulations committee. You will hear me refer to that committee again and again in this speech. Its work is as germane to this debate as is Bill C-84 itself.

In any event, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has had power since 1986 under Standing Order 123 to recommend that a regulation be disallowed. Let me assure colleagues that this is done in the rarest of situations and usually as a result of a government department exceeding its authority.

The recommendation by the committee under Standing Order 123 is just that, a recommendation. It is up to the minister responsible to address the disallowance. Sadly, there is nothing which obliges him to act upon the committee recommendation to disallow a regulation. Further, the disallowance procedure does not apply to regulation made outside of governor in council or by a minister.

Throughout the life of the previous Parliament, the then opposition Liberals on the scrutiny committee saw the shortcomings of this situation presented to them. In fact, in a 1992 report released by the Subcommittee on Regulations and Competitiveness, they requested that the disallowance procedure be replaced on a statutory footing.

The government responded that such a measure was not necessary. The Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn stated that it was inappropriate to proceed with legislation until the effect of the experimental rules could be assessed. It is 1995, a full nine years of experimenting and the only thing that has changed is that the Liberals are now in power. I ask hon. members on the government side to join with me

and amend this bill accordingly so that all regulations and deleted legislation is subjected to full and effective parliamentary review.

The definition of a regulation contained in clause 2(1) contains the phrase "are of general application". This open ended catch all is likely to be the source of debate for many years to come. Granted, when placed alongside the dual version of what exists in the Statutory Instruments Act the government has tidied up the definition somewhat.

However in practice the definition could exclude a departmental order which is specific in its nature. For example the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development makes an order with respect to the Sechelt Indian Band concerning licensing. The question then arises whether the order is considered a regulation which is subject to examination as it represents a specific rather than a general application. This is significant because it does represent an anomaly over what presently exists. It is my hope the situation will be clarified by the government at some point in the debate stage.

In addition clause 5(1) modifies the exemption guidelines which are presently set out in section 27 of the Statutory Instruments Act. The problem is that the guidelines in section 27 appear to be replaced with a general discretion. The only check in place is that an order to exempt is itself a regulation and therefore is subject to review.

Clearly this so-called safeguard is subject to interpretation and as such should be considered suspect as it departs from previous practices. The point here is that the Reform Party and Canadians are fundamentally opposed to any kind of exemption power. Somewhere along the way an exemption power has the potential to be abused.

In no way am I trying to question the sincerity in which this Liberal government has put forward this bill. I would never do that. Yet if a government with less integrity were to come into the House and for which we have an ethics counsellor-if members over there remember the ethics counsellor who, as I keep repeating in the House, is about as busy as the Maytag repairman-would they exempt on the basis of a connection to the cabinet? Perhaps not, though I say the potential is there.

Clauses 6(1), 6(2) and 7 are at the heart of the government's initiative to speed up the regulatory process. This effort should be applauded. The clauses could have a disastrous effect on the regulatory process and I will explain why.

The clauses I referred to are supposed to ensure that each regulatory authority, for instance the minister or a government department, is responsible for drafting their respective regulations. Only then can they be submitted to the privy council office of justice for advice. This is thought to be an improvement over the Statutory Instruments Act because in past practices the privy council office drafted and reviewed its work on behalf of most regulatory authorities. It did after all have the most expertise in this area but unfortunately this situation represented a conflict of interest.

Bill C-84 attempts to address that conflict of interest by taking the drafting responsibility away from the privy council office of justice and entrenching it with the relevant minister or department. In doing this the government is turning over the drafting responsibility to legal departments which heretofore have had limited or non-existent experience in the drafting of such regulations. The result is likely that poorer quality drafts will be submitted to the privy council office of justice. In turn, that office will probably end up doing the drafting from scratch.

Again, the clauses represent a good intention but fail to consider the reality of the regulatory process.

In closing out my remarks, I again call on my colleagues in this House to enhance the provisions of this bill. This can best be accomplished by placing a statutory disallowance procedure in the bill. There will be ample opportunity to discuss and review this request, but I ask my colleagues from the government side, especially those who sit on the regulations committee, to push for an amendment in this regard. Many of them pushed for this in opposition and to do any less now would be indefensible.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-84. This bill is about improving the regulatory process to the benefit of all Canadians.

The limitations and particularly the delays created in the existing system result in hidden but very real costs to all Canadians. These are in the form of increased expenditures of revenues spent in enforcing outdated and inappropriate regulations and in reducing competitiveness in the global marketplace.

The reforms proposed in the new regulations act will improve the regulatory system without in any way sacrificing its basic objectives. The government's improved capacity to update regulatory standards faster will promote the public interest by ensuring that health and safety standards are current and take into account evolving technologies.

I would like to spend a few moments now dealing with the provision of Bill C-84 which deals with incorporation by reference. This is incorporation by reference of international standards and other material into regulations. This is an important element in achieving the objectives of our regulatory reform.

First, it is important to understand that these provisions do not create a new regulatory technique. Incorporation by reference is a legal technique that is currently being widely used by governments in Canada. It is a legal technique whose legitimacy has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a legal technique that is widely employed in Europe and has been advocated by the Standards Council of Canada and many international bodies, including the International Standards Organization of Geneva.

Incorporation of materials into regulations particularly as they are amended from time to time is an important way for government to promote the goals of international and interprovincial harmonization of regulatory standards. I want to stress that such harmonization does not mean that Canadian standards will be lowered. In many cases the standards adopted will be higher.

Reliance on the expertise and timeliness of international and interprovincial standards writing organizations whose material is typically incorporated on this basis is of significant value in promoting Canadian competitiveness, particularly in the context of rapid technological change. The usefulness of this technique in promoting Canadian competitiveness was recognized in the 1993 report of the finance subcommittee on regulations and competitiveness.

The provisions of the new legislation, which authorize departments with regulatory power to develop and revise documents incorporated by reference, also provide the important opportunity to quickly revise and improve regulations. This form of incorporation is limited to documents that are essentially technical and the rules of conduct on substance, established by the departments, remain subject to the entire regulatory process.

I stress once again that, in this area, we will not be amending the legislation in use, we will be codifying and clarifying. It has existed for years, and the new legislation simply incorporates the current practice.

However, we are proposing a significant improvement to this practice, because the provisions of the new Regulations Act establish the express statutory requirement for departments with regulatory power to ensure the accessibility of the documents incorporated.

To ensure effective parliamentary control over the technical standards incorporated, the new Regulations Act provides that the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations be supplied ex officio with all the regulations.

Consequently, this committee could at any time call for, revise and comment on the regulations into which documents have been incorporated and by so doing review the documents in question. The documents, which are periodically revised, are made available in their form at the time of the request.

Like the rest of the new regulations act, provisions relating to incorporation by reference strike what we believe to be the right balance between the need to streamline and speed up the regulatory process and the objectives of ensuring the legality and accessibility of regulations and providing necessary oversight by Parliament.

The regulatory process is already overburdened. We cannot afford to bring into the process documents that are not currently subject to it. The bill will facilitate use of a legitimate technique that offers opportunities for achieving the flexibility we need without sacrificing legality, accessibility, or parliamentary accountability. For those reasons, I urge the committee to review the bill and I urge the House to ultimately pass the bill.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased-well, maybe not exactly pleased-to speak to Bill C-84 now before the House.

I listened earlier to the minister of Justice when he addressed the Chair to refer this bill to a parliamentary committee. I will come back to this issue in a little while, but for now, let me say that we know the party now in office, the Liberal Party, and the somewhat contradictory objectives it is pursuing by introducing all the bills we have seen lately. First, there was Bill C-43, the infamous bill on lobbyists on Parliament Hill. In that bill, the government stated its intention-probably because of the Pearson Airport fiasco-to have an ethics counsellor, someone to oversee everything.

Soon after, they introduced Bill C-62, which I call the standard substitution bill. That bill allowed civil servants to act on impulse, to give in to pressure by their colleagues, and often by friends of the government, as is still the case, and to change some statutory standards. That was what Bill C-62 was all about. Now, we are considering Bill C-84, an act to repeal the Statutory Instruments Act.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, know that progress must be made, and the Liberals are not stupid. They talk about great principles, things like "increased efficiency", "something good", something close to the citizens, close to the governed. Let us examine this bill closely. It does contain interesting provisions that we cannot approve blindly.

Let us take, for example, this legislation by reference. The Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is having problems with

Revenue Canada about the incorporation by reference of material in a regulation. We could have specified in the appropriate provision that these incorporations by reference also include material provided-as clause 16(1)( c ) says-by a government.

Can we incorporate in our legislation regulations passed by a foreign government? It is possible. It is possible when, for example, we want to figure out the income of a person, someone who has done his military service in the United States or in another country and is entitled, in that country, to compensation for his involvement in the armed forces. We could possibly refer to regulations or legislation from abroad. But we should specify it. Here we are faced with total uncertainty; we are not sure.

And what happens if the regulations to be incorporated by referral are amended? There again, we do not know. To come back to my example, are we to amend our regulations every time the State Department in the United States raises the pension payable to American veterans? Will we have to amend our regulations? If so, I start to doubt its efficiency.

This bill was motivated by good intentions, that could hardly be challenged. Everybody is in favour of efficiency. Yet, it starts by undermining the principles which, ever since the Bill of Rights of 1688, in England, have been part of the regulatory practices of our constitutional monarchy.

As they say in Latin delegatus non potest delegare, you cannot delegate something which has been delegated to you. However, this is what the bill does. After some 300 years of implementation of past regulations. I agree that we should make some changes, we all want changes, especially if they are for the best, but are we going to sub-sub-sub-delegate regulatory powers to the most junior clerk, hired last week, that would have an interest-I know that we must always assume that things are done in good faith-in, for example, changing a regulation to benefit someone in his family, one of his friends? There is no limit to sub-delegation under Bill C-84.

This is dangerous, especially when we refer back to Bill C-62 on measure substitution. Although it started with good intentions, I think the government is about to shoot through the bottom of the boat, which will sink. The bills of the justice minister are always like that. They always state fine principles. We have seen it with the gun control bill. The principle was noble, the principle was laudable, but watch out when it comes up in front of the courts. The government wants to relieve the courts' backlog, but this type of legislation will not help.

There is already too much pressure on the courts, and the government keeps introducing bills that are based on principles but not so much on reality.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that this bill should have been referred to another committee. The Minister of Justice said that it should be referred to a committee of members who would examine its scope. We have a Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations which has existed for at least 25 years. It is composed of experts, and God knows the Liberals form the majority on that committee. Are they afraid of themselves?

There are Liberal MPs and Liberal senators on that committee. We know that all bills are sent to the Senate for review after they are adopted in the House. We asked the Solicitor General of Canada: Why not refer Bill C-84 to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, where sixteen MPs and senators spend a lot of time studying regulations? They would be the most competent people to evaluate the scope of this bill.

The solicitor general thought it was a wonderful idea, an extraordinary idea, but that there was no precedent in this House where a bill was referred to a joint committee.

But that is exactly what a precedent is all about; it is a first. If a precedent is not a first, it is not a precedent. Why is the minister so adamant in refusing to refer this bill to a committee which knows the subject, which does that kind of work year in and year out and which reviews thousands of regulations of all kinds annually, from the diameter of nickels to the disposal of toilet waste from airplanes.

There are all kinds of regulations and we study them all. And then we become incompetent overnight because there is no precedent. Another proof of this government's inability to go off the beaten path. The government keeps its eyes on its narrow path and fails to see anything outside of it. Therefore, I would ask the minister to show some common sense and ask his colleague, the Solicitor General of Canada, in the name of all Canadians and for the sake of our regulations, to actually set a precedent. Now is the time to act. Next year, it will be too late. The work will have been done. Otherwise, I will ask him to define "precedent".

This was my point. Finally, if this government is trying to be effective, why does it not give a response immediately, within the time frame set out in the Standing Orders? When the committee presents a report on amendments to regulations to the minister, why does he ask for two or three extensions and why does the committee have to go on writing for two years, finally giving up in desperation for lack of results? If at least the minister responded to the committee report, things would improve, and there would be greater effectiveness.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, when I

was asked to speak on Bill C-84 I was quite interested and enthusiastic, just as the member for Fraser Valley West was.

This bill affects small and medium-sized businesses. It is an important bill. As a business person, I have experienced the regulations at all levels of government that do not make sense today.

Bill C-84 replaces the Statutory Instruments Act, which is almost 25 years old. We have not had a serious look at it in 25 years. That is a long time. It was probably outdated 10 years ago. It is something we should have looked at a long time ago. Unfortunately, in government and in politics legislation that should be reviewed frequently is often not because there is no political pressure to review it. I hope we will look at opportunities to review legislation more often and add some sort of sunset clause so that we can modernize regulations on a regular basis.

I was disappointed to hear that the opposition is not going to support the bill. They should actually be congratulating the Minister of Justice for putting the bill before a parliamentary committee before second reading, where the principles of the bill can be examined. This is something members of the third party have often asked for. They want more participation. They want greater opportunities for members of Parliament to be involved in discussions of the bills. This is a great opportunity. Since members across the way asked for it, I thought they would be very enthusiastic and would congratulate the minister for giving that opportunity. Instead, the member for Fraser Valley West was very articulate in talking about the fact that he was not in favour of the bill.

This bill is 25 years old. It is complex, cumbersome, and a real burden to Canadians. The minister is saying we want to simplify and modernize it. We want to make sure that it makes sense for today. What do we hear from the opposition members? They cannot support it; they are not in favour of it. Are they not in favour of simplifying the bill? Are they not in favour of modernizing the bill? Are they not in favour of making sure that committees can do their work and look at this bill?

We often hear in this House about how we have to simplify regulations. We often hear how a lot of the legislation does not make sense for today and that we need to have common sense. Here the minister is providing that opportunity and the opposition members are saying they do not agree with it.

I, and I presume many other members, have been confronted with a regulation that often makes no sense for today. We then go to some of the bureaucrats and tell them this does not make sense in today's business climate, in today's environment, and in today's technology. Often some of the bureaucrats agree with us but tell us their hands are tied because the regulation is very old and has not been reviewed and therefore they have to comply with the regulation.

This is a very good opportunity for all members of Parliament to participate in the changes that are required to have an environment that is efficient. I know the members from the third party often talk about creating greater efficiencies and an environment for businesses so they can have a cost saving.

In terms of the environment, I toured a company in my own riding, Pacific Meadows, that is involved in the recycling of metal. They inform me that there are certain regulations that impede their opportunity to recycle.

Often when government forms regulations it throws this huge net out there and catches, just as it does in the fishing industry, something it does not intend to catch. It becomes an impediment for small and medium-sized companies to do their business. The net was cast out to cover all sorts of things but not intended to catch some businesses. That is why we need the opportunity, on a regular basis, to review the regulatory process and regulations to ensure that it makes sense for today's environment in terms of international trade, changes in the environment, and changes in the health care area. All those areas have to be taken into consideration. The present act does not take those things into consideration.

This bill will go a long way to ensuring that we have a simplified, modernized bill. I do not know how anybody can be against simplifying something. We have come to a new age of communications and electronics. One of the things this bill proposes is that we have an electronic registry where forms will be filled out electronically so that we can become more efficient and more cost effective. I believe that will go a long way.

I hope the members across the way will realize that small and medium-sized businesses all over this country will be disappointed with the stand they have taken to vote against modernizing a regulatory process when business people all over this country know we have to improve the way our regulatory process works. I think Canadians across this country will applaud the government and the Minister of Justice for bringing this legislation forward to modernize and simplify our regulations.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-84 is an attempt to create confusion in Canadian regulations. There is certainly no indication that this bill will lead to any improvement.

As my colleagues already pointed out, the bill will in fact allow the government to hide its operational mistakes and waste. It will make it easier for public servants and government officials to

circumvent Parliament. My colleagues already explained that it is creating confusion in the regulatory process.

This is one of the reasons why we will vote against the bill. Contrary to what my colleague just said, I do not even believe it is an important bill. It was merely introduced to keep the House busy, to avoid dealing with the real issues, the real problems. This bill will not help job creation. We know full well that this bill, like a number of other insignificant ones, is being introduced to keep the House occupied and avoid any debate on sovereignty or the future of Canada. It allows the government to procrastinate and wait until after the referendum to make cuts in Quebec. Social programs will be drastically cut.

Next year, cuts will be more drastic than this year. This year, $650 million will be cut in social programs. Next year, it could be $1.2 billion and maybe more. The following years, it will be $2 to $3 billion a year. These are the real problems. They affect Canadians and Quebecers who would like their elected representatives to address these problems. And yet, here we are in this House talking about a piece of legislation which deals with regulations and does not even improve the situation, creates confusion and gives bureaucrats more powers to impose regulations which might not be beneficial to small business and business people.

As far as the real issues are concerned, this government has a tendency to table legislation in keeping with a political philosophy which is increasingly more right wing, favouring cuts and the centralization of powers. What is happening to social programs clearly shows that this government has no respect for the ordinary citizen. When it makes huge cuts in social programs and reduces UI accessibility, these are the real issues.

Why not talk about that, rather than about regulations which, for all intent and purposes, are without any importance? It is because we are waiting until October 30, to see whether Quebec will vote for sovereignty. Personally, I hope that Quebecers will realize that federalism is no longer profitable, that Quebec contributes more and more to a central government which is less and less effective, and Bill C-84 proves it, because again it creates confusion. It is inconsistent and does not even abide by the Official Languages Act.

We are giving powers to officials without making them responsible to Parliament. This is what Canada is offering the people of Quebec. Here we have a government which is less and less effective, which creates confusion and which despises Quebec. When we talk about cuts in social programs worth billions of dollars per year, when we talk about cuts in unemployment insurance, we are talking about things which impact on ordinary people. Also, the government has shown that it intends to reduce old age pensions. These are real problems, real issues which worry people, at least in Quebec, and here we are, today, talking about regulations, something that nobody understands.

Reading through the bill, one cannot see its purposes nor its basis, except perhaps to keep us busy here, in the House, talking for hours on end about this worthless jumble. The real questions are being avoided, or postponed to the end of October.

This bill is another example of the federal government's tendency to centralize, of its policy shift to the right. This is serious, because the trend was already evident throughout North America, in Alberta, in Ontario, but now it reaches into the federal government. It will soon make itself felt in cuts to unemployment insurance and social programs, and many Quebecers will end up on welfare.

Federalism is not profitable for Quebec any more. From now on, Quebec will see itself paying more and more every year into the federal system while receiving less and less. Incidentally, Quebec has not been receiving its due share from all federal departments for a very long time now. We did receive a lot of money through equalization payments and unemployment insurance benefits, but that will change in the next few years. Quebec will get less and less and pay more and more.

In the case of unemployment insurance, the federal government stopped contributing to it in 1990, employees and employers paying for it entirely. This year, in 1995, the federal government took from the UI program some $5 billion that will be used to other ends than unemployment insurance payments. Not only are they not giving money for those who lost their job, they are limiting access to UI benefits. Next year, in Quebec, two thirds of the people who will claim unemployment insurance benefits will be found ineligible.

It has already been estimated that 40,000 unemployed will have to go on welfare. These are the real issues that concern people. But, this week, in the House, we will be talking about regulations which do not make sense and only show that the government does not know where it is going. This government is not addressing fondamental concerns, because in the debate on sovereignty, it has nothing to offer to Quebec; therefore, it is avoiding dealing with issues.

In Quebec, we want to give confidence to Quebecers and to encourage them to take their destiny into their own hands after October 30. We want to give real hope to employers, to ensure equity and justice. This bill concerns the justice department. However, the best way for Quebecers to get real justice at home is for Quebec to become sovereign.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I must say that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, when you and I were both elected in 1988, among all of us who came into Parliament that year there were probably a number of things we wanted to do here as parliamentarians. A number of issues were of tremendous interest to us: the question of the future of our wonderful country, the unity of Canada, the continued thriving of one united Canada, and issues relating to matters very close to my heart such as making sure that violence against women is eradicated soon.

It is a safe bet to say that the majority of members of Parliament whenever they were elected do not necessarily become passionate over tissues like Bill C-84, the Regulations Act. Yet these matters are very important.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will take part in the debate a little later. I think this is something the hon. member understands full well. From his years as a high school student when he wrote a paper about the pipeline debate in the House the hon. member has been very interested in and perhaps one of the most knowledgeable members of the House on questions of process.

When we talk about regulations and the Regulations Act we are really talking about process, if I might wax somewhat hyperbolic, read in tooth and claw, as I am sure the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands would agree.

It is not the stuff of which romantic novels or poems are written. It is not the stuff of overweening rhetoric, but it is the stuff of the day to day operation of government. Most particularly it is the stuff of the day to day operation of good government.

What are the objectives of the bill? There are a number of objectives. It will simplify and streamline the regulation making process because it will clarify existing legal uncertainties in the regulatory field. That sentence probably does not strike huge chords of interest in the populous in general. It probably does not strike huge chords of interest in my colleagues on the opposite side in any of the opposition parties. I would hazard a guess that, fond as I know my colleagues on this side of the House are of me, it probably is not striking huge chords of interest in the member from Miramichi, for example. I do not think it is striking huge chords of interest in my friend from Saskatchewan.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Not at present.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Not at present. That is all right too because this is the stuff of good government. It also is the stuff of promise keeping. One of the major promises in our red book in 1993 was to simplify and streamline the red tape that affected small business and this act will do just that. For example, it will replace the antiquated and misunderstood phrase statutory instrument with the word "regulation".

In my time practising law, teaching law and commenting on the law in the media before I came to this place, there was the idea that we had to demystify the processes of law and government for most Canadians. It is certainly of great importance that we demystify those processes for those Canadians working in the area of small business.

The legislation will modernize the regulatory process for the information age by providing a legislative framework for the electronic publication of regulations and for public comment, the electronic medium. That is yet another milestone for us on the information highway, an area in which the hon. Minister of Industry and the hon. Secretary of State for Science and Technology have served us so well in recent days.

The act will make regulations more responsive to public concerns by improving the scrutiny role of the Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

It was not necessarily one of those committees that members of Parliament from either side of the House rushed to join, but it was one very important to the smooth functioning of good government. One of the reasons the government is in power is that historically and currently we offer good government to Canadians.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

One of the ways we do it is by not electing empty barrels.

By streamlining and simplifying the regulatory process and making it more accessible to the public, the act supports government efforts to make government more transparent and open to Canadians, again a fulfilment of a red book process.

The legislation also supports the government's agenda of promoting economic growth and job creation through a streamlined and expedited regulatory process that will improve the capacity of departments to respond rapidly to the changing circumstances of the global economy.

One thing I find when I go back to my riding and talk with people in small business is the question of not knowing what is expected of them. The passage of the bill will make the problem much less onerous for Canadian operators of small businesses.

I think, for example, of those people who opened small businesses in the city of Halifax. I think in particular of those people who are the most common openers of small business in the country, women. Women start more small businesses in Canada than men do. They tend to stay at it longer and they tend in the long run to be more successful.

One of the problems I hear from women when I go to meetings encouraging women entrepreneurs, talking with them about small business and the relationship between government and small business, is a fear to get into these areas because they are not sure

what is expected of them. They feel they will have to pay accountants and lawyers large amounts of money to interpret government policy to make sure that their businesses are staying within the realms of government regulation.

The bill will go a long way to easing those fears, to opening up for entrepreneurs the ideas of government policy and to telling them exactly what is expected of them.

The whole point of good government is to make the country an even better place, an even more liveable place for the people who live in it. I listened to my colleague from Quebec a few minutes ago. He made the point over and over again that the federal government had nothing to offer to the people of Quebec. I do not believe that, Madam Speaker. I know that you do not believe it. More important, the people of Quebec do not believe it either.

Just recently I had the very good fortune to travel right across the country. As a matter of fact this summer I did it twice, once by stopping off in various places with the immigration committee and listening to people-my hon. colleague from Bourassa was with me on that trip-and once again by returning from the fourth women's conference in Beijing via Vancouver and Calgary to Ottawa.

The ties that bind us together never cease to amaze me, whether we are from Quebec or the maritimes, the north or the west; whether we are from Southwest Nova or Kingston and the Islands; whether we are from the beautiful province of British Columbia; whether we are from the north or the prairies; or whether we are from that beautiful province that is every bit as much my country as it is yours, the province of Quebec.

It is good government that this government offers Canadians. It is good government that will keep Canadians together. It is acts like this one in their plainness that give us good government.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, although in favour of the updating of the Regulations Act to address the problem of the current regulatory process, the Bloc Quebecois cannot and will not enter this venture blindly.

As it is, Bill C-84 does not give all the safeguards we should expect. First, clause 5 provides that the Governor in Council may exempt regulations from the application of the regulatory process provided that the public interest is respected.

According to the same clause, the public interest includes achieving goals relating to safety, health, the environment and sustainable development and reducing regulatory costs and delays. Why are the objectives of safety, health and the environment mentioned? Is the government trying in a underhanded manner to extend the federal jurisdiction over the environment sector? Is the government once more trying to create unnecessary and expensive overlaps?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Come on!

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Nothing of the such.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

That is what the bill says, dear colleague.

Does this government want to take over provincial areas of jurisdiction? Is this what they call flexible federalism? For me we are rather going backwards. Another attempt to pull a fast one on the provinces. This bill also questions the publication of regulations. This bill calls into question many other aspects. It is left to the Clerk of the Privy Council to decide whether all regulations should be published in the Canada Gazette as is now the case or in any other venue as he sees fit, either in special interest magazines or through electronic means.

What openness. Only the people and organizations directly concerned could have easy access to the regulations. This procedure fosters inequalities between people and between small businesses and large corporations, which, unlike small businesses, can afford lobbyists to keep a close eye on what the government is doing.

This kind of action is unconscionable. The clerk must be required to publish an official notice in the Canada Gazette . And to better spread the information, he may order that the regulations be published in a different venue. I have no problem with that. That is progress, that is transparency, and not a double standard policy where the government tries to hide some information. But there is worse than that in this bill.

This bill is indefensible, especially the clause that indicates that failure to publish a regulation does not invalidate it. That is where the shoe pinches. The government must at least be honest; people have the right to know which regulations are in effect. The official publication of the regulation must validate it. How could it be otherwise, if we want to insure equity to the people in general?

To some extent, this bill allows the privatization of commercial and industrial regulations, probably based on American standards, which opens the door to the introduction of standards written only in English.

Who will be responsible for translating an American code on screw and bolt strength requirements for the aircraft industry, for example? If such a code were available in French, what guarantee do we have that subsequent changes will be published in French by the American association?

By providing few guarantees, Canada is using cooperating agencies or countries to impose upon us standards and frameworks that do not concern us. With this legislation, in particular clause 19,

the federal government is trying, little by little, to minimize the Quebec culture by eroding our identity.

In its opinion, there is only one multicultural Canadian culture expressing itself in several languages, including French, but mainly in English.

Parliament scrutiny of the regulatory process is maintained in its existing form. The government should have taken the opportunity given by this act to improve distribution of regulations to all members of Parliament. The legislation should provide for the right of every member to have access to regulations through electronic means or at least through a printed copy. The whole body of federal legislation must be available. Yet, at present, members of Parliament do not have access to this work instrument.

In concluding, I would like to point out another anomaly the government is not correcting in this legislation. As soon as a bill is introduced in the House, the government has regulations drafted. If members had access to draft regulations when legislation is debated, we would avoid a loss of time in basic discussion and we would be in a better position to assess the impact of new regulations.

For all these reasons, I will vote against this legislation in its present form, but I will vote yes in the upcoming Quebec referendum.