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.
