Debates of May 23rd, 2013

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

This bill is obviously very technical. It seems rather difficult to understand and to apply. My colleague alluded to the extent to which the regulations can be applied. Naturally, he talked about the two official languages, in particular their use in rescue operations.

Could my colleague point to other situations that could possibly pose a problem with respect to the regulations and regulatory provisions to be implemented?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of examples that prove that the official languages are not a priority for this government. The Conservatives talk about it, but they take no action.

One question must be raised. Is it possible that the regulations and the standards could be in English and that a Quebec company would have to have them translated? Who would pay for that? These regulations are very technical. The language is not very clear for the uninitiated person who does not know English very well and who wants to decipher the objective. It is also legislation. It is a regulation with some power. Who will pay for that, if required? I do not know.

Does the government intend to work in both official languages when it comes to all the regulations? I do not think so. We have questions. I believe that there is a way to ensure that all francophones in Canada will be winners with this bill. However, we still need answers.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, this is not really a question. It is a comment. The member is absolutely correct that basic research and investigator-driven investigations are very important. Just a couple of days ago, I announced more than $400 million for basic research. What the member might also want to know, and here is some trivia for him, is that the laptop computer was actually invented as a result a government asking scientists to come up with a computer that would actually fit in a briefcase.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that in debating is called a smackdown.

That is an interesting piece of trivia. We have had two now. We had one earlier in my friend's speech, and now we know where the laptop came from. I did not know that.

I have often said that if we left it solely to government to try to invent something like the BlackBerry, just in and of itself, it would be 40 pounds and would work at a distance of 200 feet. It would not be all that great, because the government is not well designed to do that kind of innovation in and of itself. However, it is meant to stir and stimulate that innovation and bring together the best minds. That is a good role for government.

The BlackBerry, perhaps, is no better example. The government invested heavily. The oil sands would be another example. The government invested heavily across the country in developing the technology and in stimulating the type of investment that allowed it to start being profitable and commercially viable.

While innovation in and of itself can come from government, there have been some concerns, and the minister is well aware of them, about too much of a move toward only commercialized science. That is science that, from the moment it starts, is purely designed for that commercial moment. While it sounds pretty good in a press conference, the minister will also know the way science works. Innovators do not know what they are going to get when they start. The best minds are open to those possibilities. We need to attract those best minds. We need to allow them the space to make those mistakes, because that is what science is. It is a series of repeated mistakes until they find the way through and find the inventions and innovations that lead to a better quality of life for everybody.

I thank the member for the tidbit. I did not know that about the laptop.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former federal researcher, having worked for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, an academic once told me that the best researcher is somebody who is humble enough to know that he or she does not know everything. I paid attention quite closely to the speech given by my hon. colleague and was surprised at how far the government has gone in refusing to recognize a number of amendments, which has proven that it does not have an open mind, thinks it has the only truth and is arrogant enough to believe that. I find it strange that it is bragging about its openness to science when the a priori of science is to recognize that we do not know anything and that we learn from others and the experimental process.

With regard to this legislation, if we had that perspective, how much could we improve this legislation?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, something I have admitted publicly before, that I got quite wrong in terms of my thinking when the current government moved from a minority to a majority position, was how the tone and tenor of the debate would be and how legislation would be dealt with. I assumed that with a majority and the confidence of being able to pass legislation, that confidence would then lead to a certain amount of willingness to discuss amendments and work on legislation because at no point in a majority government, unless there is a serious crisis, can the government fall.

Minority governments are naturally quite skittish, and that is understood, and there is a lot of parlaying that has to happen between the parties. I have been wrong and disappointed so many times at committee. It is not that we put forward an amendment and the majority members of the government on the committee say it is wrong because of x, they just vote against it. Then they vote against the next one and the next one and the next one, until we have gone through all of the amendments and they are all gone. That is not necessarily the best way to do things and I sometimes search for the reason for that. Why bother? Who cares, if an amendment gets through, who the source was?

In fact, one might argue, strategically, it would better bond and tie the opposition to the legislation being moved through if we made amendments to it. I have seen legislation, as have you, Mr. Speaker, that has moved through the House and when the opposition starts to feel a certain need to vote against it, the government says the opposition got 10 amendments and they changed this, that and the other. Bill C-15, the military justice act, is a good example. There was a long battle and a certain amount of arrogance that was going on until a fundamental amendment was accepted and, lo and behold, look at what happened. We got a better bill, not according to us but the people it is going to affect: the military. That is good, that is better, that is what Parliament is meant to do. There has been too much of this bellicose attitude.

Hope springs eternal, as my friend, the government House leader, said earlier, and the hope is that we find that common ground a little more often, rather than the constant dismissal and arrogance of saying that the answers to the questions we face can only come from one side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the area of regulations, that is for sure. I would suggest he read Cass Sunstein's new book because I firmly believe there can be smart regulations that decrease costs to both the industry and the consumer if they are written well.

Getting back to my question, this bill does not change the gazetting process, where there is open consultation with Canadians and people can write in. It really is a legislative tool. I would ask the member to keep an open mind. By having more tools in front of us, by codifying the practice of incorporation by reference, Parliament has more tools at its disposal in order to, at the end of the day, bring forward a better result for Canadians.

I would like him to speak specifically to those things. Is he aware that this does not change that and is he supportive of parliamentarians having more tools at their disposal in a codified way to build what he said earlier, that certainty for business and growth?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gazetting process has not changed, although some would argue that as the gazetting process is right now, it is not open enough to the public. There are a number of instances where new regulations have been gazetted and the people affected had no idea it had happened at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon, dumped in before Easter. There are other concerns I have around the gazetting.

In terms of offering more powers to parliamentarians, I might argue back that there are a number of changes we have seen not just in this legislation but others allowing more and discretionary powers not to the elected officials but to the unelected.

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

Legislative tools.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There may be legislative tools, as my friend says, but there is not as much in this bill, though certainly others, where the deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers end up with an increased amount of power: the Fisheries Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and on and on it goes. That is actually straying more toward the anti-democratic nature of things. That is a concern for many of us because the power should rest here. This is the place that is supreme and that is why we are all here to try to get things done.

[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.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I have for him the same question I asked the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, to which I did not really get an answer.

As the deputy critic for persons with disabilities, I like to look at proposed legislation through a disability lens, and I think the word “accessible” has a different meaning from the one the bill is proposing. On behalf of persons with disabilities, I would like to know whether the government intends the word “accessible” to include accessibility for persons with visual impairments who need Braille copy, persons with hearing impairments, et cetera.

On the face of it, this has a different meaning from just being able to access the legislation or the regulation as an ordinary Canadian. Therefore I would like to know, from the government's perspective, if the word “accessible” is inclusive of persons who have disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer that by saying yes and no.

I do not believe that the term “accessible” in this particular bill refers to accessibility in the traditional common-sense definition of being accessible to someone with a disability. That being said, the government, by using incorporation by reference, is still required to meet all of the obligations it is required to meet normally. Therefore, if there is a requirement, if it is commonplace for the government to produce references on a website that is readable by someone with a visual impairment, then that requirement will carry over to this. However, as far as I know, the accessibility in this legislation refers more to the ability of someone to access it generally and not specifically as it relates to a person with a disability.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have incorporation by reference, and many of those references will be of a third-party nature; for example, international standards. Many of those standards will often be written in just one language, predominantly in English. I wonder if the member could provide comment as to whether or not he foresees that as being somewhat problematic given that Canada is a bilingual nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, incorporation by reference does not allow the government to avoid its language obligations. Canada's Constitution requires that acts of Parliament and regulations made under them must be enacted and published in both official languages. It also recognizes that it is constitutionally acceptable to incorporate by reference a document that is not available in an official language if there is a bona fide, legitimate reason to do so.

Documents generated by the government would always be incorporated in both official languages. Therefore, this legislation would not change anything in that regard, and obviously there would be every effort made by the government to have the documents or the reference material available in both official languages. However, in the case where that is not possible, and there is a legitimate reason for it not being possible, this would allow those documents to be referenced as well.

[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 certainly appreciate that, and I could not hope to fill the shoes of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla when he left the scrutiny of regulations committee. I am just trying to pick up the slack where he left it.

I did want to comment on the hon. opposition House leader's comment that there was no fight to get on the scrutiny of regulations committee. I think the member for Hamilton Mountain, the co-chair of that committee from the New Democratic Party, would take great offence at that. She does a great job as well.

Returning to the member's question, using incorporation by reference in regulation would facilitate harmonization and intergovernmental co-operation. It would reduce barriers to trade. It would allow the government to access leading edge technical expertise from national and international standards writing organizations.

The hon. opposition House leader mentioned a case of an updated health regulation in a bill that he brought forward when he was first elected. If that regulation had been incorporated by reference and been updated, it would have automatically updated the legislation and the regulations so there would not have been a need to go through a legislative change at that point. If there had been a medical advance or there was a new warning system for a certain chemical, that would have automatically become law through this sort of process. That is my understanding. There are definite benefits to the health and safety of Canadians and also to the productivity and commercialization prospects for companies across this country.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and likewise his colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla for their leadership on this. I appreciate very much the presentation they have just made.

In terms of business certainty, the official opposition House leader talked earlier about certainty as an important value in this legislation. For Canadians who might be listening in—there must be a couple—if we incorporate by reference and it is a standard that would be amended from time to time, how are we going to know at this time whether that law is in force? In other words, if it is an ambulatory reference to a law that may be changing, that we are going to incorporate by reference into this law, it may have changed a couple of times since our law was drafted—because that is what an ambulatory reference is, dynamic, and ignorance of the law is no excuse in our system—I have to know what law I am complying with. How do I know?

[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.

[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.

[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 an interesting question. Let me make it relevant to the bill if I could. I talked about the difference in terms of Constitution versus laws, versus regulations. When we think of a Constitution, it is a whole lot more difficult to change the Constitution. For example, let us say we wanted to change the Senate, whether it is to make it a triple-E Senate that the Reform Party used to talk about, or to abolish the Senate. We would have to get virtually all of the provinces, I think 9 out of 10, to agree. We would have to have a constitutional debate and I do not know if Canadians are open to a constitutional debate.

We could be a little deceptive. We could say that we want to abolish the Senate, but in reality it is not that simple because we would have to change the Constitution. We would have to make sure that Canadians as a whole want to change the Constitution and get a sense of what provinces want in terms of a Senate. We do not want to prejudge what Canadians want and we have to respect what our provincial jurisdictions would want to see.

From the Liberal Party's perspective, we are quite open-minded, but it is going to be Canadians and the provinces that will ultimately have to agree to a constitutional reform in order to deal with that issue.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was very fascinated at the end of the member's speech, which he did not get a chance to finish, on international regulations and standards. I was wondering if he could finish his thoughts.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from my colleague because it is a very important part of this issue. We need to recognize that when we talk about the incorporation of references, we are really saying that we have third-party agencies, international standards, provincial standards, they do not even have to be government agencies. What the government is proposing could take anything from one sentence potentially to a 500-page document. The document ultimately would be changed by a third party and in essence become a law here in Canada that would be applied to all people who call Canada home from coast to coast to coast.

That means we could have an international standard in some foreign country changing a document. We might not even be aware of that change. It could be done in one language. It might not even be in English or French. Yet, potentially, it would have an impact on everyone here in Canada. I do not know if that is what Canadians would want to see happen and that is one of the reasons why we are having a difficult time and will not support the bill going to the committee stage.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to my colleague from Winnipeg North, especially in response to my colleague about the Senate. Perhaps there is an argument to be made for incorporation by reference if we incorporated rules by reference to absolutely abolish the Senate. We could simply incorporate the reference and off it goes. That would probably be the best example if we wanted to incorporate by reference. It would absolutely work.

The majority of polls across this country in the last few months said that close to 70% of Canadians say it is time to roll up the red carpet, wish them all a happy new year or the best of the summer season and send them home to never return. Since my colleague talked about this being a constitutional piece, it is Canadians who are saying enough is enough. I suggest that Canadians across this country from coast to coast to coast who are saying it is time to roll up the red carpet tell their politicians, provinces and territories that it is time for them to get on board and simply say sayonara to the senators. Does he not agree?