Bill C-202 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality)

Canada Health Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act. The bill would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, ensuring that Canada's linguistic duality would be respected in the health care system everywhere in Canada.

I will begin by saying that opening up the Canada Health Act is certainly a bold move by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. My initial reaction is to wholeheartedly support his private member's bill. However, upon further reflection, I must voice reservations.

Clearly, an individual's ability to communicate with his or her health care provider in a language in which the individual is comfortable is extremely important. For doctors to offer appropriate treatment, they must fully understand their patients. Unfortunately, language may sometimes act as a barrier to understanding and this may be detrimental to health.

I remember a patient was to be operated on in California. His left leg was to be amputated but because of a lack of communication somehow the doctors wrongly amputated his right leg. Ultimately both legs were amputated and the person had to suffer throughout his life. We understand that language and communication is important.

Bill C-202 seeks to ensure that Canadians have access to health care in both official languages. However the problem is that this proposal really ignores Canadian reality. In Canada today, especially in areas popular with immigrants, it would be nearly impossible to ensure that all Canadians have access to health care in their language of choice. It is not simply a case of bilingual service, service in English and in French. That is a dated view of our country.

Let us consider the riding of Surrey Central for a minute. There are 68,810 residents whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. According to the 2001 census, only 1,590 people in Surrey Central have French as their mother tongue and only 200 use French around the home. There are 11 other languages that more commonly are used in Surrey Central homes. Punjabi for instance is the mother tongue of 35,140 people in Surrey Central and 18,705 people use Punjabi as their home language in Surrey Central.

In this case, if we are truly interested in language rights and serving people in a language they can understand better and clearer, we should not be asking medical personnel to speak French. We should be asking them to speak Punjabi or another language. Even if we do so, it might do nothing to help the many thousands of residents who speak Cantonese, Filipino and Korean, just to name a few languages which are prevalent in Surrey Central.

Also, the proposed amendment to the Canada Health Act will do nothing for the 9,285 residents of Surrey Central who speak neither English nor French.

Requiring the provinces to provide bilingual services would make no sense in Surrey Central. French is simply not that prevalent in that region. It is far less popular than a whole slew of Asian languages.

Surrey Central is by no means unique. Throughout the B.C. lower mainland, in Toronto and in other areas with a heavy concentration of immigrants, we will find many Canadians who interact most comfortably in neither of our official languages.

Already multilingualism is a reality in Canada's largest urban centres. In Vancouver, one in six people have Chinese as their mother tongue. In the metropolitan area of Toronto nearly two million people have neither French nor English as their mother tongue. Many of these people are more comfortable speaking in Chinese, Punjabi, Urdu or Tamil than they are in English or French.

The Canadian reality is that 59.1% of Canadians are anglophone, English is their mother tongue; 42.9% francophone, French is their mother tongue; 18% allophone or non-official language as their mother tongue.

Only in Quebec and New Brunswick do francophones make up more than 4.4% of the population. Outside Quebec there are 980,270 francophones and 4.6 million allophones. If we exclude Quebec for the sake of this debate, there are nearly as many Chinese or East Indians as francophones in Canada. Therefore why stop only with linguistic duality in the health care system?

Regrettably economics must be a consideration when deciding upon adding a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act. There are now one million Canadians on wait lists for medical services. According to the Fraser Institute, total wait times from referral by a general practitioner to treatment averaged 16.5 weeks in 2001-02. That should not be acceptable.

There are 4.5 million Canadians who are unable to get a family physician. The provinces are already stretched in their efforts to deliver health care. They already have enough to deal with in addressing long wait lists, shortages of medical personnel and increasing public expectations. The federal government should not burden the provinces with new responsibilities, especially if there is no additional cash commitment to do so.

Bill C-202 states that the provision of health services for the linguistic minority shall take account of the human, material and financial resources for each facility and the social, cultural and linguistic characteristics of the members of the public served by the facility. This vague language leaves the bill open to wide interpretation. The Canada Health Act is already vague in a number of respects without need for further vagueness.

The Canada Health Act came into force in 1984. It sets out five criteria and certain other conditions that a province's health care insurance plan must meet in order for the government of that province to receive the full federal cash contribution under the Canada health and social transfer.

For the information of those who are watching this debate, the five criteria in the act include: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration. The act also contains specific provisions with respect to extra billing by physicians and user charges by hospitals.

Full compliance by some provinces has been from the beginning a problem. Part of the problem has been definitions or more specifically, the lack there of. What is mean by “medically necessary”? That is up to each individual province to decide for itself. The result is uneven public coverage across the country.

Likewise, what does the act mean by “reasonable access” to insured health services? With the growing prevalence of long waiting lines for medical services, it is little wonder people are asking whether they have reasonable access to health care services.

In 1984 many services, such as drugs, rehabilitation, recuperation and palliative care, were provided in hospitals and therefore covered by the act. Increasingly these services are provided in the home or community and as a result fall outside the scope of the Canada Health Act.

Health care gobbles up $10 billion annually in B.C. It accounts for 41¢ of every provincial tax dollar. The government has increased funding by some $1.1 billion but it still is not enough and further cost savings are being explored.

People in my community have been faced with the closure of Saint Mary's Hospital in nearby New Westminster. This means seven fewer operating rooms. Last year almost 1,800 Surrey residents had surgery in this hospital. Where do they go now?

Therefore I appreciate the efforts of the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier. It is a noble idea but it will not pass a cost benefit analysis. It will not pass geographic and demographic criteria. Our health care priorities require tough and difficult decisions. We must consider those priorities, which are emergencies in many of our hospitals and communities.

We all watch the health care services that are required in our northern territories and so on. Each and every community suffers from the lack of health care services provided because of the lack of facilities. The government is the root cause for the deterioration of our health care services in our communities because it cut $25 million from our health care transfers since taking power in 1993.

Now the government wants to be perceived as the saviour of our health care. It is like an arsonist who sets a house on fire, then he is the first one seen with a bucket of water to put out the fire, and wants to be called a hero. That is what the government is trying to do.

The government created this mess in our health care services. It is time that we look into this issue seriously, carefully, and make prudent and diligent decisions to restore the health care services to seniors, children, the sick, and the destitute who are suffering because of the lack of those services.

Health care priorities are unique because they require tough and difficult decisions. Sometimes we must make choices and we have to live with them. This is an excellent effort by the member. However, it will not pass the test of a cost benefit analysis as well as the demographic realities.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a very big fan of private members' business, especially when it involves proposed legislation which I consider to be wise and well thought out. Bill C-202 in the name of the member for Ottawa--Vanier is a very good piece of proposed legislation.

The member is the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. He has spoken out very passionately in this place as recently as the debate on Bill C-13 to get that piece of legislation subject to the Official Languages Act. As a consequence, the government even supported the motion and his reasoning. Even on a voice vote the House embraced it. It is a signal from this place that the Official Languages Act has a very special place in Canada and that all our legislation, all our agencies and all of those organizations which touch the fibre of Canada should be covered under the Official Languages Act.

I congratulate the member wholeheartedly for presenting Bill C-202. This will add the principle of respecting linguistic duality to the Canada Health Act specifically, but it is also a signal that we are ready to clean up all of the other areas. I am sure that the government will consider the member's recommendations.

The member spoke very eloquently to this bill. He wanted to ensure consistency in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canada Health Act and the Official Languages Act. We have to put our constitution, our legislation and our Official Languages Act on the same playing field because they fit very well and serve Canada very well.

The member gave a number of arguments. One was that effectively we would be adding a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act. We operate now under five principles but that sixth element is equally important. The Canada Health Act guides us in all the legislation to do with health. It provides the foundation on which all Canadians can get the services they need; comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability, et cetera, and in both official languages without hesitation. That is as important as effective delivery.

The member indicated that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology held hearings on this matter and issued a report. A number of testimonials came from the provinces.

The federal government provides leadership in many ways but when the provinces come forward and say that this is a good idea and it is what we should be doing, then it is pretty important. When there are key players in each of the provinces who are prepared to make testimonials on behalf of the proposal that the member has raised and on which the Senate committee had hearings, those things are very powerful and should not be ignored.

Mr. Paul d'Entremont from Nova Scotia stated:

In Nova Scotia, there exists no provincial law or policy stipulating that services must be offered in French. This explains why access to health care in French is so very limited, and where such services are offered, they are provided thanks to the dogged persistence of individuals and community organizations.

That is very important. They are trying to get around it but they do not have the tools to make it happen. The quote continues:

Existing French services have often been put in place by chance, randomly, and the community fears losing them. The comments gathered during the recent consultation of the Acadian francophone population in our eight Acadian regions such as in the recent study carried out by the FCFA, bear witness to the fact that there is very little access to services in French.

That was the Nova Scotia representation. Nova Scotia does not have adequate access to services in French. Mr. d'Entremont went on to recommend that the federal government add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act on linguistic duality.

In Ontario we have similar support. A representative from Ontario said specifically:

The data show that half the time, francophones living in minority situations have little or no access to health care services in their own language. In other words, a great deal remains to be done before we achieve equality as regards health care services for francophone minority communities.

Therefore Ontario has the same situation. The Ontario representative also supported a sixth principle on linguistic duality and the protection of minorities. We have again a very important reference from credible people who represent the interests of people in their provinces.

In British Columbia, Ms. Yseult Friolet, who is the Executive Director of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique in her testimony stated:

When we think of British Columbia, we often think about mountains and the sea, but we may forget that there are 61,000 francophones living in our beautiful province.

She went on to say:

There is also a large community of people who speak French as their second or third language. There are close to 250,000 people in our province who can speak French, which is roughly 7 per cent of the population.

She went on to add her support for a sixth principle for the Canada Health Act. She also appeared before the Romanow commission and made the same argument.

In Prince Edward Island it is a very similar situation. In representations by Ms. Élise Arsenault of the Centre communautaire Évangéline, she stated:

The community now wants the federal government to assume a leadership role in this regard by providing financial support to the provinces that wish to offer more health services in French and to include a sixth principle in the Canada Health Act.

From sea to sea to sea I could read testimonies from Quebec, from New Brunswick, from Yukon, but I believe that many members here would like to join in this debate to lend their support to the proposal that we should have this sixth element in the Canada Health Act because it is important to Canada. It is a constitutional issue. It is a minority rights issue. It is a parliamentary issue. Specifically, in the proposed bill it is also a health issue. I am very sure that once we deal with this aspect it will provide the springboard effect that is necessary for us to move forward in other legislation and with regard to the operations of other agencies.

As can be seen, the members of the official language communities are expressing their support for health care services in both official languages. Through a number of spokespeople, they have requested that the Government of Canada add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act. Numerous communities have also spoken. They want to see their constitutional rights guaranteed when it comes to health.

We as members of the House of Commons are in a position to make that happen and I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill C-202. Let us make it unanimous, let us do it all stages and let us make this the law in Canada.

Statutory Instruments Act

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, I thought she was going to conclude by saying that we had the best regulatory system in the world, but she refrained from going so far. It may well be the only thing we do not have, since according to our colleagues opposite, we have the best of everything else.

All kidding aside, this is an interesting private member's bill. Despite being a technical bill, it is still interesting. In fact, it reveals a sensitivity, or an awareness of the lack of say that parliamentarians have in different committees or on different issues. Allow me to explain.

The bill introduced by the member of the Canadian Alliance, if it was boiled down to the essential, would allow for a disallowance procedure that would apply to all statutory instruments, subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. In so doing, this enactment would ensure that Parliament will have the opportunity to disallow any statutory instrument made pursuant to authority delegated by Parliament or made by or under the authority of the cabinet. Unless I am mistaken, this is how the current system would be changed under this legislation.

The way the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations currently operates is similar, as one would expect, to how other parliamentary committees operate. It is in this committee that my friend from the Canadian Alliance has experienced some frustration, as have members of the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties and often members of the governing party, and I will come back to this a little later. Therefore, committees sometimes unanimously come to the realization, after a bill has been passed and after several rounds of discussion here in Parliament, that the regulations that frame the legislation, or implement it, go beyond or against the discussions surrounding the bill, or its intent. In such cases, the regulations must be amended.

Officials—either unconsciously, or consciously— may have gone too far when drafting the regulations to frame or implement the legislation. The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations reviews these regulations and has seen that they sometimes infringe upon or go beyond the intent of the legislation, and overstep the value of the bill in question.

Like other committees, when we notice this, we issue a report that is tabled in the House. One can understand our frustration when, even if the report is adopted unanimously, the government, more often than not, says, “Thank you very much”. It then takes the report and shelves it and waits.

If specific regulations hinder the application or goes against the intent of legislation, it is our duty as parliamentarians, having debated it at first reading, second reading, in committee, and at third reading and having voted in this House on the intent or application of a specific piece of legislation, to say so. Take the Young Offenders Act. When we vote on and pass legislation such as the Young Offenders Act we have certain objectives. If the regulations go beyond what parliamentarians intended, then it only seems right to give those who passed the legislation the ability to repeal certain regulations. I have a hard time understanding the Liberals' opposition when they had agreed with Bill C-202. They woke up—I am not sure when or how—and are saying that, as far as Bill C-205 is concerned, they no longer agree.

It is difficult to understand how we can value our role as parliamentarians to pass legislation and entrust the application or regulation of this legislation to another level. That seems odd. However, this is not the first time and certainly will not be the last time that we will have difficulty understanding the consistency of the government's positions.

I have examples. The members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can decide unanimously or by a strong majority that private members' bills are votable. The Liberals, who make up the majority on this committee, vote on this. The government members who sit on this committee decide that private members' bills are votable. This is the committee's decision. Then, in the House of Commons, the government says no. Even though it is a majority or unanimous decision, it is set aside.

It is very frustrating for parliamentarians, especially when the 1993 and subsequent red books indicated that the power or role of parliamentarians must be increased and improved, and that the government then stubbornly refused to do so. When it comes to implementing regulations, it gets even more frustrating, because there is an obvious problem.

Examples were provided as a background to the bill, ain particular a report of the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. The report, unanimously adopted, sought to repeal certain regulations. It was tabled over a year ago, over two years ago, and still nothing has been done. So, the act continues to be enforced erroneously. This situation must be rectified.

There is talk of tradition. There was a tradition about a hundred years ago that consisted of voting to send troops into combat. Now, the Liberals are ignoring this tradition and have decided, during a debate that did not lead to a vote, to send troops into combat. Sometimes traditions are fine, sometimes not. You cannot have it both ways.

If a House tradition shows how obsolete regulations are, it is our duty to correct this situation. In this regard, I fully understand the hon. member of the Canadian Alliance. This is our most difficult task because, as legislators, we must ensure that the laws we discuss and on which we vote will be enforced according to the spirit of the debate held in the House.

In committee, it is by improving the too often traditional and obsolete aspect of the British parliamentary system that we give meaning to the role of members. So, we clearly set out the scope of the acts we wish to propose. I find it difficult to understand why there would be any opposition to this bill.

I spoke to a certain aspect of this bill, and I would like to make one final point. Parliamentarians are also called upon to repeal regulations that go beyond the intention of a proposed bill or act. But this goes further; it indicates a problem with how we function as parliamentarians.

It goes further than this when there are debates on urgent and important issues. The role of an MP should also include the ability to vote on certain issues such as sending troops into combat in Iraq, which is of concern to us at this time.

We can see that the government's position is set and that a second UN Security Council resolution is not needed. We see how imminent the deployment of those troops is.

If the situation is being described as hypothetical, the fact that aircraft carriers, troops and military personnel are already being sent out, and that considerable sums are already being invested—it strikes me that the situation is less hypothetical than it is for the present Prime Minister—this is another aspect of our role of parliamentarians that ought to be taken into consideration in this debate.

It is in fact being described as a technical debate, a private member's bill that is technical in nature and concerns the disallowance of certain regulations. All of this addresses our role as legislators, that is to ensure that statutory instruments are properly enforced, but also our role as representatives of our constituents, a very strong majority of whom, in the case at hand, are opposed to sending troops into combat roles in Iraq. Our role as parliamentarians obliges the government to hear us out so that a vote may be taken on this.

I thank the hon. member for his work on the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. I encourage him to continue with this clarification, and we are going to be in favour of his bill.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), introduced by the member for Surrey Central as Bill C-202 during the last session.

I would begin by echoing some of the comments made last June by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when the previous bill, Bill C-202, was debated in the House. The present bill relates to the critical role that parliamentarians have to oversee the exercise of legislative powers that are delegated by Parliament. These powers are mainly delegated to government ministers, most often acting collectively in what is generally known as the governor in council. However, legislative powers are also delegated to individual ministers as well as to a wide range of other bodies.

It is important to appreciate that the delegation of power does not involve a surrender or relinquishment of power. Parliament can withdraw delegated powers at any time. It continues to be ultimately responsible for the exercise of these powers and accordingly has a mandate to monitor their exercise and ensure that they are used in a way that continues to meet the purposes for which they were delegated.

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has performed, and continues to perform, an invaluable service to the House and the Senate, as well as to the Canadian public generally, in its review of statutory instruments made under acts of parliament. Through its careful examination of these instruments, it provides this House with valuable assistance when it comes to the oversight of delegated legislation.

Chapter 14 of the Standing Orders reinforces this oversight role. It makes provision for what is often called the disallowance procedure for statutory instruments. This procedure involves the tabling of a report by the standing joint committee containing a resolution that a statutory instrument be revoked. If the resolution is adopted, it becomes an order of the House to the government to revoke the statutory instrument in question.

To date, I believe the disallowance procedure has been used to adopt a total of eight resolutions. The fact that the government has complied with all these resolutions is clear proof that the disallowance procedure in the Standing Orders is working well.

Today we are being asked to consider a bill that would significantly extend these procedures. It would amend the Statutory Instruments Act to include disallowance procedures similar to those that, as I have just mentioned, already exist in the Standing Orders of the House.

However, there are some important differences between the current disallowance procedures and those proposed in the bill, and these differences continue to raise serious concerns that I would once again like to draw to the attention of the House.

First, the bill proposes to move beyond the traditional role of holding the government accountable to the House. It proposes to have the House revoke statutory instruments itself. Another difference is that the proposed procedures would extend to all statutory instruments and not just to those made by the government, as is the case with the procedure in the Standing Orders.

I would now like to explore these differences and indicate why they raise concerns. As I have mentioned, the procedures in the bill provide that a resolution of the House would be effective to revoke a statutory instrument. Under the existing procedures in the Standing Orders, it is up to the government to decide whether and when to revoke a statutory instrument in response to a resolution.

I believe that decisions about whether or not to revoke a statutory instrument should remain with the government. It is responsible for making the instrument and it should be responsible for revoking it. This responsibility is owed to the Canadian people as well as to the House. The government is answerable to the House for its conduct, and it is answerable to the Canadian people by vote. A procedure that removes its responsibility is antithetical to the traditions of responsible government that underlie our parliamentary institutions.

This is an argument based on principle, but I would also argue that this is an argument against the bill which is based on practicality. Revocation by parliamentary resolution raises the prospect of gaps in the law. The procedures proposed by Bill C-205 are entirely negative in their consequences. They do not, and indeed cannot, entail the enactment of provisions to replace those that are struck down.

Yet there may often be a need for regulatory measures of some sort and if the disallowed measures are not appropriate, then obviously alternative provisions are needed to replace them. Under this legislation there is no provision for alternative provisions. The development of alternative provisions, that is, alternative statutory instruments or regulations, usually requires significant capacity to develop regulatory policy as well as a familiarity with the regulated community. This requires technical expertise and consultative processes that the government is putting and has put in position and provides. This is recognized by the very fact that Parliament has indeed delegated to the government the regulatory powers in question.

A further difficulty is the timeframe for revocation that Bill C-205 would put in place. Under this legislation, a statutory instrument would be revoked 30 days after the resolution is adopted, yet often much more time is required to develop regulatory measures. The government's regulatory policy requires extensive consultation with interested persons before a regulatory proposal is adopted. Then, proposed regulations have to be published in the Canada Gazette for a minimum of 30 days to allow those interested to comment and voice their concerns. These opportunities would be completely swept away under the rigid timeframe of the procedures proposed by Bill C-205.

A second main difference between the bill and the current procedures in the Standing Orders is that the bill would extend the disallowance procedures to non-ministerial regulations. It would provide that the disallowance procedures would apply to any statutory instrument. This would include a vast number of documents, many of which are made by bodies that operate independently of the government.

Let me provide the House with a few examples. We have administrative agencies, such as the CRTC and the Canadian Transport Commission that, under their legislation, have the ability and the right to effect such statutory instruments or regulations. Under Bill C-205 those regulations could be revoked within 30 days of having a resolution adopted.

Our courts, one of the three pillars of a democratic society in government, make rules of procedure. They would fall under and be captured by Bill C-205. What about the separation of the judiciary and government? Not under Bill C-205.

We have aboriginal law making bodies, such as Indian bands, agricultural marketing boards and local port authorities.

Although the current disallowance procedures are appropriate for regulations made by ministers of the Crown, it is not at all clear that they would be appropriate for the wide variety of other law-making bodies that make statutory instruments.

I would like to conclude by stating that the government, as is the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues, is committed to addressing the concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and ensuring that officials of their departments take these concerns every bit as seriously as they do.

The government is prepared to entertain any suggestion for improving the relationship between parliamentarians and the government. Lastly, it is my sincere belief that it would be far more advantageous to try to settle the concerns around delegated legislation within the framework of the existing mechanism of parliamentary scrutiny.

Lastly, if it is a Standing Order it is not court challengeable, whereas if it is a piece of legislation, it is.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

moved that Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am pleased to rise to speak on my private member's bill, Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act.

I would like to thank the hon. member for seconding the bill. The last time the bill was in the House it was seconded by the Liberal member for Scarborough Southwest. I had originally planned for a member from the NDP, the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, to second it, but I appreciate his intention to support it. That is how things have gone. I very much appreciate it.

I first introduced the bill last June, known as Bill C-202, and then reintroduced it in October after prorogation of the House. Last time I had the support from all parties. I am very happy that members from different parties will be speaking to the bill and I look forward to them supporting it.

The bill provides for a disallowance procedure for all statutory instruments or delegated legislation, commonly known as regulations, subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Its enactment would ensure that Parliament would have the opportunity to disallow any statutory instrument made pursuant to authority delegated by Parliament or made by or under the authority of the cabinet.

Disallowance is one of the traditional means at the disposal of the legislature to control the making of delegated legislation. A disallowance procedure gives parliamentarians an opportunity to reject a statutory instrument made by a delegate of Parliament.

For the information of those watching the debate on television, statutory instruments give form and substance to legislation. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details” or sometimes in the fine print. However, in this case, the devil is in the regulations.

We know that 20% of the law in the country stems from legislation debated and passed in the legislature, and in this case in Parliament. The remaining 80% of the law is made up of regulations. Members of Parliament passionately debate proposed legislation in the House and after debate we vote either yea or nay, depending on the merit of the proposed law.

Regulations, on the other hand, receive virtually no debate in the House or in the other place, no public study or input, or even media scrutiny. This is an affront to democracy.

The Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations does the only scrutiny, and that too is only limited scrutiny, of regulations of Parliament. Members of Parliament and Senators on the committee, legal counsel and staff work very hard scouring through thousands of papers on dry, technical and legal subject matter as part of their thankless task of reviewing regulations or statutory instruments.

The committee is generally misunderstood and ignored, but it is an essential watchdog, protecting democracy, controlling bureaucracy and holding the government to account. If I may say so, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is a non-partisan committee, or at least less partisan and more objective than other committees of Parliament.

The committee does not judge regulations on the basis of policy matter, general merit or necessity. Its study of regulations is instead limited to the questions of validity and legality, and members follow uniform and clearly defined criteria in their examination.

The committee works meticulously and, with the complex nature of its undertaking, work proceeds at a slow pace. The inevitable result, especially considering the large volume of regulations introduced each year, is a huge backlog of work in progress. Staff and resources allotted to the committee are nowhere near adequate.

I am four term co-chair of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee representing all members in the House, and speak from personal experience. The committee works to improve and correct defects in the regulations. Its ultimate weapon, however, is to disallow defective regulations. This is a weapon only used when strictly necessary. In a case where the joint committee considers that a regulation should be revoked, it makes a report to the House of Commons containing a resolution to the effect that a regulation, or a part thereof, should be revoked. Once that report is tabled in the House, the applicable procedures will depend on a decision by the responsible minister.

Unfortunately, the current disallowance procedure is seriously defective. The procedure resulted from a recommendation of the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, the McGrath Commission, in 1986. Before that time there was no general disallowance procedure in place at the federal level in Canada. The government of the day placed a disallowance procedure in the Standing Orders with the intention it would remain there on an experimental and temporary basis until such time as a decision could be made to its effectiveness.

If a success, it was the intention of the government to implement a statutory procedure. Temporary is of course a relative word, but it should not mean indefinitely. In the last 16 years we have seen the effectiveness of having a disallowance procedure but still nothing has been done to give it a statutory footing. This experiment has been going on for 16 years. It is about time we conclude that experiment and look at the success of the disallowance procedure and put it on a statutory footing.

I will explain why it is not on a statutory footing. My bill would put it on a statutory footing and thereby increase the effectiveness of parliamentary control or delegated legislation.

The current procedure limits the possibility of disallowance to those statutory instruments that are made by the governor in council or by ministers of the crown. As a result, a considerable body of delegated legislation created by quasi government agencies or boards, for example by the CRTC, the National Energy Board, CIHR, the Canadian Transportation Agency or even the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, is not subject to the disallowance procedure. Thus, a large number of delegated legislation or laws escape the control and scrutiny of Parliament.

This is a consequence of the choice made in 1986 to implement the disallowance procedure by means of amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons rather than by legislation. When the Standing Orders were amended to accommodate the disallowance procedure, it was not on statutory footing. It should have been done by legislation.

The present procedure relies on the executive to take further action, not on Parliament, to give effect to an order that an instrument to be revoked. A statutory procedure eliminates the need for this and guarantees compliance with the decision of the House to disallow a statutory instrument or regulation.

Mr. Speaker, you might remember that in 1992 the Subcommittee on Regulations and Competitiveness noted the deficiencies in the present procedure and recommended that it be replaced by a statutory procedure covering all statutory instruments, not just selected instruments.

I think all members will agree that it is desirable that all statutory instruments subject to review by Parliament under the Statutory Instruments Act be subject to disallowance. There is no reason why a regulation made by the governor in council or a minister can be disallowed by Parliament while a regulation made by some other delegate of Parliament cannot.

Parliament delegates authority to quasi agencies and boards to make regulations but does not have authority to scrutinize them, disallow them or correct them or to see their validity or legality. How can Parliament give authority but not have control over those regulations that completely escape the scrutiny of Parliament?

The procedure only applies to the House of Commons and not the Senate. That is another serious issue which needs to be reviewed because Parliament contains both houses. The other place and this place need to work together on disallowance procedure.

Another defect of the current procedure is that it relies on the co-operation of the governor in council or the minister concerned to carry out a disallowance after the House of Commons has ordered it. An order of the House of Commons cannot affect the revocation of a regulation. The authority that made the regulation to be disallowed must still formerly intervene to revoke that regulation following the making of a disallowance order.

While the House could deal with the matter as one of contempt of Parliament, there are no other legal sanctions or even consequences that arise from a failure to comply with a disallowance order. For instance, a report can be tabled in the House for disallowance and concurred in but there is no guarantee that regulation or statutory instrument will be disallowed because it depends on co-operation from others. Even though it could be contempt of Parliament, there are no legal repercussions after that. It is pathetic.

As a matter of law and order of the House of Commons that a particular regulation be revoked is not binding on the author of the regulation and cannot be enforced by a court of justice. Under the status quo procedure, the revocation of an instrument disallowed by the House of Commons would ultimately depend on a decision of the governor in council or the appropriate minister to obey the order of the House of Commons or not. The will of Parliament does not impose upon the decision of Parliament.

Placing the disallowance procedure on a statutory footing, as this bill recommends, would remove the need for a regulation making authority to take subsequent action to give effect to an order o the House, thus eliminating the potential for conflict between the legislature and the executive.

Proposed subsection 19.1(9) is a new provision. By putting the disallowance procedure on a statutory footing, the procedure also would be made more efficient as there would no longer be a need for the House of Commons to address an order of the cabinet ordering the revocation of a statutory instrument. The legislation itself would now deem a disallowed instrument to be revoked.

By eliminating the need for further action by the governor in council or the minister who adopted the disallowed instrument, compliance with a disallowance decision would be improved by eliminating any possibility of a regulation making authority not complying with a disallowance order of the House.

It seems a little complicated and technical, I know. However those veteran members of the standing joint committee will understand and I am sure that other members have a fairly good idea of what I am saying, though it is a dry topic and a little technical and complicated.

Bill C-205 provides that the revocation of a regulation does not take effect before the expiration of a 30 day deadline. By doing so, the bill would ensure that the regulation making authority responsible for the disallowed regulation would have an opportunity to take measures to mitigate any negative impact that the revocation might have, including the enactment of alternative regulations.

So the 30 day period will give the opportunity to mitigate any negative impact, by disallowing that particular regulation, that it can have on the industry, on safety, or on other issues. Again, it will also give the opportunity to the regulation making authority to enact an alternative regulation or to correct the defect and so on.

Proposed subsection 19.1(10) provides for a situation in which a minister has filed a motion to reject a proposed disallowance and the motion is not adopted. In that case, proposed subsection 19.1(9) would deem the regulation or other instruments to be revoked at the expiration of 30 days from the day on which the motion to reject the disallowance was considered but failed to obtain the approval of the House.

As members of the House of Commons, elected representatives of Canadians from coast to coast, it is our duty to protect democracy. It is incumbent upon all of us in the House, irrespective of political affiliation, to make the disallowance procedure more transparent and more effective.

This is a non-partisan issue. The last time the bill was in the House, it was the Liberal members who seconded it. All opposition parties in the committee are represented, including the governing party. On the other side, senators are there. We had a discussion about this. Our legal staff is involved in it and there is almost unanimous consent. I cannot say unanimous because I have not spoken to each and every member, but the members in the committee have an intention to have a disallowance procedure.

By providing a clear legislative basis for the current disallowance procedure, Bill C-205 would, first, allow Parliament's authority to extend to all instruments subject to review under the Statutory Instruments Act instead of only those made by the governor in council or a minister. Second, it would remove the necessity for additional action on the part of the regulation making authority in order to give effect to an order of the House that a regulation be revoked. How simple it would be if we had a disallowance procedure on a statutory footing.

Bill C-205 thus not only gives effect to recommendations made by numerous parliamentary committees that have studied the matter, but it would both strengthen the current disallowance procedure and make the procedure more effective by putting it on a statutory footing.

Members from across party lines, including senators, have voiced their concerns on the bill. I have support from small, medium sized and large businesses, various organizations and stakeholders, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and various Chambers of Commerce. There is wide support even in the industry.

I am certainly aware that regulations reforms are needed and that there is room for improvements and amendments and strengthening of the bill, which can take place when it goes to the committee. Let us send it to the committee.

I wish to thank the members from all parties who will be speaking to Bill C-205, as well as the many senators who are supporting the bill, including my co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, Senator Hervieux-Payette, who extended her support.

It is very important to restore transparency and democracy in parliament. This private member's bill is a non-partisan issue and I am optimistic that all members of the House will support it, as it has been a long overdue initiative.

I am sure that since this initiative is in the best interests of all parliamentarians and the public in general, members from all parties will enthusiastically support it and send it to committee for further action. I am open to recommendations and amendments to the bill.

Business of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties, as well as with the member for Ottawa—Vanier, concerning the order of reference of Bill C-202 listed as Item No. 24 on the order of precedence in today's Order Paper.

In this regard, I move:

That Bill C-202 be referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages as opposed to a legislative committee.

Canada Health Act

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out, even though the government strongly supports the intent and the spirit of Bill C-202, that we have had the health act of Canada since 1984. The government cannot interfere with provincial jurisdictions. This is a responsibility of the provinces. It is so mandated and we cannot interfere. The government, clearly and without question, cannot support the bill.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to this important bill, Bill C-202, standing in the name of the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I feel very passionately about this bill.

As a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, I come across all sorts of things concerning the legislation on bilingualism in Canada.

The bill proposed by the member for Ottawa—Vanier focuses on the health sector. It deals, more specifically, with a sixth principle to be added to the Canada Health Act. This is an important issue, which members will have to seriously consider.

I am really disappointed that the Canadian Alliance decided not to address this issue, today. But we shall see what happens in the coming hour.

We should learn to accept the reality of official languages, not merely respect it. Furthermore, this issue goes beyond official languages. It is about respecting others.The purpose of the bill is to help people. It is a bill about linguistic duality in the health sector.

The place of French and English, in minority communities, is a current issue. A few days ago, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled a report asking that the government do more on this issue. The Commissioner's efforts do have some impact.

A few days ago, in this very room, an hon. member challenged the role of official languages in the public administration. We cannot tolerate such unparliamentary language by members.

We still have a long way to go. We need the change mentalities and behaviours, which is even more difficult. Believe me, we have had a lot more examples of that this week.

Fortunately, a few minor improvements can easily be accomplished. A bill or a motion could be more helpful than we think. I am glad to see this bill from the member for Ottawa—Vanier being introduced here.

I concur with the idea to introduce an appropriate bill whose purpose is to help people. However, I can only object to a member bringing forth a destructive bill or uttering racist comments.

It is often assumed, incorrectly, that all the people's rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a wrong assumption.The charter provides a certain amount of protection to francophones and anglophones, but it is not enough. In most of the provinces, rights recognition did not translate into meaningful action, especially in the health sector.

Bill C-202 is quite simple. It is so simple that everyone here can understand it. If we give it some thought, it makes no sense to oppose it. The bill establishes that language will not be an obstacle for people when they seek care, when possible.

This is simply common sense. The country has two official languages and still people cannot receive hospital care in the language of their choice.

The most important thing in life is one's health. Ask someone who is sick if he would prefer money or health. If we asked someone who is rich and healthy which he would choose between the two, he will go for the million dollars. But ask someone who is sick which is more important. He will answer health. He would give anything for his health. Imagine then, when it comes time to seek medical attention, if he cannot talk to the doctors or nurses in his own language. He cannot even describe his condition in his own language.

This is when Canadians must show open-mindedness. Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, all the provinces of Canada must be open to these two communities, the French-speaking and English-speaking communities, so that people can receive treatment in the language of their choice and understand what they are being told.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier is proposing that a sixth principle be added to the Canada Health Act. Great. Adding a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act makes sense. Canada is a bilingual country. Debates in the House of Commons, as well as federal government documents, must be bilingual. Since the federal government is giving money to provincial governments for health, it makes sense that it would enforce its own bilingualism requirements.

With all due respect to Bloc Quebecois members, including my hon. colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I am sure they are going to argue that this is a provincial jurisdiction. I respect their opinion. But at the same time I would expect the opinion of Canadians to also be respected. If the government is going to spend money in an area, it should have a say. In many parts of Quebec, people who speak English are respected. I am sure, however, that there are places where they are not.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved that Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise, and I am doing so eagerly, to speak to Bill C-202, which will be debated in the House today for the first hour at second reading stage. Before going any further, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, for supporting this bill at first reading, and the member for Leeds—Grenville for supporting it at second reading.

I said eagerly because I have been waiting for this moment for five years, since this initiative started its journey in the House in 1997.

This bill would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act. This basic principle would ensure that Canada's linguistic duality is respected in the health care system everywhere in Canada.

When we put it like that, it sounds cold, legal and perhaps even incomprehensible to people who have better things to do than to read the Canada Health Act, things like earning a living for instance. However, for those who, like us, look into issues that are of concern to Canadians and are responsible for deciding on the best course of action for the future of one and all, this is downright scary.

This is when people start looking for—and they always find some unfortunately—the kind of arguments that hold us back. The most common one is that it is too expensive. Believe me, there will always be complaints about anything having to do with the rights of minorities being too expensive.

That it is not true, however. Quite the contrary. Bill C-202 asks that we take account, and I quote, “of the human, material and financial resources” of the facilities involved in developing health care access plans or delivering these services. No action shall be taken without looking at the capacity of each facility.

Also, with new technologies like telemedicine and diagnostic software, health care professionals will be able to provide services to several facilities.

Granted, hiring personnel capable of providing health care services in both official languages will entail additional costs. However, given that health care reform is unavoidable and actually well underway, we need to train more physicians and nurses anyway. So, why not train enough health professionals capable of working in both official languages of the country?

The current political climate suggests that the Government of Canada will have to reinvest in health care. So, with a sixth principle, a portion of the additional contributions would be dedicated to steps taken to respect the principle of linguistic duality.

The other reaction we get to the addition of a sixth principle is to say that this is an area that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I say that it is not so. Yes, and everyone agrees on this, health programs and their management are the responsibility of the provinces. But the Canada Health Act and the Canada Health and Social Transfer are within the federal jurisdiction. In fact, the highest court in this land has recognized the constitutionality of the Canada Health Act. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the Parliament of Canada cannot set the conditions for the transfer of credits to the provinces.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that Canada and each of its provinces and territories are having serious problems in the area of health, especially in terms of ensuring that everyone has equal access to top quality health care and services.

The whole country is facing significant shortages in terms of doctors and health professionals. There are also too few nurses. We see a shortage of family physicians in big cities, something that, not so long ago, used to occur only in remote areas. Even at that time, it was unacceptable.

I am not blaming anyone, but we have to realize that governments were unable to find a solution and to stop that shortage from affecting the big cities and now almost everyone.

And as if that were not enough, our governments now have to pay more just to maintain the current level of health care. A huge portion of every government's budget goes to health care. We restructure. We merge. We innovate. We introduce new methods. We close beds. We perform more day surgeries. We keep looking frantically for a solution to this problem, which has reached epidemic proportions.

In its substantial report, the committee chaired by Senator Michael Kirby raises these concerns and proposes solutions. In Canada, the people wants this to be the number one issue.

The commission chaired by the hon. Roy Romanow will be releasing its final report next week.

I draw hope from the words of Commissioner Romanow in a speech he delivered for the John Kenneth Galbraith lecture on public policy at Memorial University in Newfoundland last October 23:

The principles of the Canada Health Act were built on basic values like equity and solidarity. To Canadians, these values mean everyone should have access to our health care system on the same terms and conditions, and that this access is ultimately a right of citizenship.

They mean that access to the health care system should be based on need, not a person's wealth, province of residence, gender or age. Canadians still feel strongly that these basic values must set the direction upon which the system is governed in the future. They have served us well and they show us the way.

In fact, as long as change is built from these values, I believe change will be acceptable to Canadians. In other words, I think Canadians are prepared to rethink some of their ideas about medicare, provided we do not retreat from our ideals.

Following those words from Mr. Romanow, I remind members that all minority language communities in Canada support the bill.

Umbrella organizations, which represent those communities, namely the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, or FCFA, and the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, asked that a sixth principle be added to the Canada Health Act. Those groups made that request to Mr. Romanow during his Canada-wide hearings and they made the same request to the Senate committee chaired by Senator Kirby. Our communities want it.

This debate and the subsequent vote will not be an easy task, but hon. members will agree that we are not here to make easy decisions. If everything always went well, we would not even need to be here. We are here because the task is difficult and because people, in each of our ridings, regardless of the political party or the region, expect us to deal with issues that are difficult but important for their future.

I dare say that issues dealing with linguistic minority rights are central to our idea of this part of America, where we chose tolerance and diversity rather than the absolute quest for uniformity. We have chosen difficult tasks because they allow us, collectively and individually, to reach a higher level.

All parties in the House acknowledge the relevancy of Official Languages Act, the rights of Canadians enshrined in the Constitution and the preponderance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all have undeniable rights.

Even the Canadian Alliance which, as the former Reform Party, did not consider linguistic duality as important, in its policies, now acknowledges the importance of our two official languages, and I quote:

We support the need for key federal institutions, such as Parliament and the Supreme Court, to serve Canadians in both English and French.

In its policy statement of May 2002, the party also acknowledged, and I quote:

--the federal government's responsibility to uphold minority rights.

No one will be surprised to hear that the million francophones making up minority communities in Canada have an urgent need for services and health care in their language. A study published by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes, the FCFA, indicates that at least half of that community has no access to health care in French.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, has recognized the difficulty minority communities experience in accessing proper health care services in their official language.

In addressing the Quebec Community Groups Network on October 20, he said:

You have identified access to quality health care in one's mother tongue as a very high priority. A Missiquoi Institute-CROP survey in 2000 indicated that 84% of anglophones [in Quebec] rate that type of access as “very” or “extremely important”. This is particularly relevant because a greater proportion of the anglophone community is 65 years of age or older...and more likely to use the health care system.... This older population also tends to be far more unilingual: 56% of them do not speak French.

The minister also said that access is particularly difficult outside the greater Montreal region.

As far as I am concerned, we have first and foremost a moral obligation to these communities.

Furthermore, I would like to underscore to the government and the cabinet that there is a constitutional obligation to add this sixth principle. I realize that, when the Canada Health Act was enacted, it was left out. Our history is full of such omissions, but also corrections that we have made when our mistakes became apparent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act of Canada require that the federal government take into consideration linguistic minorities.

While this may not have been clear in the past, it is quite clear now. All of the successive judgments from the courts have confirmed this constitutional obligation, particularly judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec's secession and in the Beaulac decision, not to mention the unprecedented decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Montfort Hospital case.

And I would go so far as to say that if the Government of Canada ignores its responsibilities, how can we expect provincial governments to shoulder theirs?

The Official Languages Act, backed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly at section 16, requires that all Government of Canada programs take into consideration our linguistic duality. Without a doubt, this includes the cash transfers to the provinces for health care services.

In fact, one only has to read the Canada Health Act to realize that failing to specify the vital nature of services to minorities was an oversight. Take only a few of these principles that are considered sacred by Canadians.

Take universality. If service delivery is to be universal in a country where there are two official languages, then it goes without saying that we must serve linguistic minorities the same way we serve the majority.

When it comes to accessibility, having equal access to health care services no doubt means access to services in one's own official language.

As for portability, let us reflect for a moment on what is included in this principle. It says that we will be treated as we would be treated in our home province, should we need to call upon health care services in a province other than our home province.

In some Canadian provinces, residents enjoy linguistic rights when it comes to health care services. This is the case in New Brunswick, which is the only officially bilingual province.

Let us ask ourselves this question: can Canadians who have certain language rights with regard to health care in their province of residence transfer those rights to the other provinces, particularly the ones that do not offer these language rights to their own residents? We have to wonder about that.

If the principle of transferability, or portability, in the health care system implies language rights for some Canadians, should we not ensure that these rights are extended to all Canadians, regardless of their province of residence?

Despite these arguments that I believe to be sound, some will ask whether the existing principles imply respect for linguistic duality. If the act, the charter and the unwritten principles in the Canadian Constitution already require that minorities be protected, why add a principle that may be redundant after all and therefore useless?

We all know the answer to that question. We have learned, after nearly a century and a half of history that, unfortunately, keeps repeating itself, that we cannot rely solely on the goodwill, the understanding and the vigilance of our governments with regard to linguistic duality.

This is why we legislate. This is why we have a Constitution. This is why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It must be written in black and white in our statutes. And even then, we know that we have to be vigilant.

I will ask those who argue that it is not necessary to add a principle to protect our country's linguistic duality with regard to health care a question that is just as valid. If the existing principles imply respect for linguistic duality, why then would anyone be afraid of adding such a principle?

Here again, we know the answer, and it is not pretty. The truth is that, politically, it is not worth it. It creates problems for nothing. In Canada, as we know, linguistic issues have always been explosive.

So we are back to square one, caught in a vicious circle of our own creation, immobilized by fear, unable to act, while the rights of the linguistic minorities keep on being ignored.

How many more court decisions will it take before we take action?

If I may, I will appeal to your sense of history, our history. We are all victims of misinformation when it comes to our history, which includes having us believe that the founders of our country were not preoccupied by linguistic duality. It is absolutely not the case.

When the Fathers of Confederation took the bold step of creating a new country, 135 years ago, they would not have conceived of Canada not respecting the rights of its linguistic minorities. The protection of these minorities was the underlying principle in all their efforts and actions.

If ever there were any doubts regarding their intentions, the decision of the Appeal Court of Ontario in the Montfort case erases them all. The judges of this highly respected court wrote, and I quote:

Protections granted to linguistic and religious minorities are an essential characteristic of the 1867 Constitution, without which Confederation would not have come into being.

The court also quotes a reference to the Supreme Court dated 1932, in which Lord Sankey wrote, and I quote:

It is important to keep in mind that the preservation of the rights of minorities was a condition on which such minorities entered into the federation, and the foundation upon which the whole structure was subsequently erected.

It is high time we lived up to the promises made by the Fathers of Confederation. It is time to set aside our traditional arguments. It is time to make hard decisions.

Under the law, under our Constitution, in keeping with our history, and in the name of the legacy we will leave to humanity, in the name of everything good this country represents, in the name of past, present and future generations, I urge this House to demonstrate a spirit of generosity, the Canadian spirit, when it comes to this bill.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to debate the Speech from the Throne.

Throne speeches ought to be the Liberal Government of Canada's vision for the future, a vision that should provide guidelines and inspiration for the future, a vision that sets a framework around which budgets can be developed. However, this throne speech has no plan or no details. It is simply recycled from past Liberal agendas. It is a recycling of promises that were broken in the past and that I am sure will be broken in the future.

This throne speech shows so many empty promises. The Liberal government's so-called legacy seems to be the repackaging of past failures, but one thing I absolutely agree with is that the Prime Minister and the former finance minister seem to be policy soulmates.

The Liberal government's vision appears to be absolutely unclear and blurred and its priorities are misplaced. Therefore, the Liberals' ad hoc, unfocused, undisciplined approach to spending will not benefit Canadians. The highest quality of life and economic prosperity can be achieved if spending is applied to those initiatives and Canadians get value for their money. No wonder Canada's relative standard of living has fallen from the fourth highest of OECD countries in 1990 to eighth in the most recent OECD survey.

In Canada taxes are already too high and affect our competitiveness, work effort, productivity, savings and investment. Health care, defence, agriculture, the environment and many other issues will continue to suffer and be ignored. Patronage, scandals, corruption, subsidies and pork barrelling will not stop.

As official opposition critic on the scrutiny of regulations and in fact the past co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, I will be dealing with a particular issue. I believe that the vision of the government and getting its priorities right is related to listening to Canadians and their elected representatives. In other words, we need to implement democratic reforms. The Canadian Alliance and its predecessor party have been raising the issue of democratic reform for a very long time. There is too much concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. Our elected dictatorship rules, not governs, the country. During the last election 68% of Canadians did not approve of the government's vision.

This leads me to the other issue of parliamentary reform. The influence, input and the role of Parliament and parliamentarians is diminishing. Free votes in Parliament are very rare. Efficiency, effectiveness and the work of standing committees are in disarray. An elected, effective and equal Senate is not in sight.

Also, private members' business is counterproductive. It continues to be like a pacifier given to quiet a baby. The baby keeps sucking and nothing comes out of it. Similarly, members of Parliament keep working hard on their private members' business but no meaningful result comes out of it. The most important job of the 301 members of Parliament in the House and the 105 senators in the Canadian Parliament is to formulate and update legislation.

It is still Parliament's duty to hold the executive branch of the government accountable, but perhaps only 20% of Canadian law is made in Parliament. The remaining 80% is added through the back door by way of thousands of regulations made by the executive branch of the government. Regulations are neither debated nor subjected to public scrutiny. Many regulations contain matters of policy that are never even debated in parliament. Therefore, in democratic reform, parliamentary reform is an integral part, and in parliamentary reform, regulatory reform is the most important component, which has been ignored for far too long by everyone, including the media.

There may be many Canadians, including parliamentarians, my colleagues, and the members of the media, who are not aware of the direct and indirect costs of the regulatory burden, or what is commonly called red tape. According to a report, Canadians have to spend $103 billion per year to comply with federal, provincial and municipal regulations. That is 12% of our GDP or $13,700 per household, an expense second only to shelter. This cost exceeds total personal and corporate income taxes collected by the federal government.

Red tape is hidden taxes and is a costly impediment to productivity and growth. In addition to restricting people's freedom to make their own choices, rules and regulations dampen innovation, discourage investment, stifle entrepreneurship, weaken competitiveness, curtail jobs and lower the standard of living. According to a Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey, businesses believe that government regulations have had a negative impact on their ability to run a profitable and productive operation, with 66% of respondents saying they felt that it was the federal government's fault.

Provinces like Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia already have recognized this limitation in our democracy and have been working hard on moving from red tape to smart tape, and from smart tape to smart government. They have eliminated duplicate, expired and counterproductive regulations. Countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, New Zealand and France already are on the path to regulatory reform. It is the federal Liberal government that is lagging light years behind other jurisdictions. Scrutiny of regulations is thus an essential task in protecting democracy, restoring transparency and legitimacy, and controlling bureaucracy.

I have reintroduced my private member's bill, Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, calling on the House to give the disallowance procedure for regulations a statutory footing. It is a votable bill, a non-partisan issue and a necessity, and many members from all parties enthusiastically support it. It was even seconded by a colleague from the Liberal side of the House. I have raised this issue of regulatory reform on many occasions both in the House and outside. The Speech from the Throne briefly mentioned it and I am waiting to see what action the government will take and how soon.

Let me suggest or recommend the following to the Prime Minister for his to do list. Draft regulations and other statutory instruments should be tabled along with legislation and debated in the House. They should also be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House. The realistic alternatives to regulations, such as negotiated compliance, should be explored. The focus of regulations should be results-based outcomes. Regulations should be written in transparent, simple, clear and easy to understand language.

Cost benefit analysis should be done and published. The regulatory process should be harmonized within various departments as well as with other jurisdictions, including with provincial and municipal governments, for example, environment, fisheries, agriculture, health, labour and transport. Regulatory proposals must include a sunset clause or performance review. Public awareness, consultation and input should be encouraged.

Since my time is limited, I will go over a few more recommendations. No international regulatory commitments should be entered into without careful regulatory impact analysis to ensure that international proposals are in tune with Canada's interests, for example, the Kyoto protocol. Many times penalties are too low, for example, in relation to the proceeds of crime. Sometimes that nullifies the effects of imposing those regulations in the first place. Canada should introduce a regulatory flexibility act, similar to that of the United States.

I have many recommendations, probably 20 more. Since my time is over, I would like to conclude that I regret that the address to Her Excellency has recycled an empty vision, has restored to grandiose rhetoric and intends to implement expensive programs at the cost of Canadians looking for practical solutions to challenges we face, including democratic, parliamentary and regulatory reforms among others.

Statutory Instruments Act

[The Speaker]

The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-202 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 37th Parliament. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the bill shall be added to the bottom of the list of items in the order of precedence on the Order Paper following the first draw of the session, and designated a votable item.

Perhaps the hon. member could confer with the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier who got his bill in as Bill C-202 and see if they can arrange something and come back to the House shortly. If there is consent we will make the appropriate adjustment.

[The Speaker]

That will be difficult because we already have a Bill C-202. These numbers get put on and those are the breaks. Therefore it will be difficult to do that, but we will deal with that issue in a minute. We will get the bill read a first time before the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments).

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, and indeed all Canadians, in the spirit of democratic reform, I am reintroducing my private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments).

The bill seeks to establish a statutory disallowance procedure for all statutory instruments that are subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, of which I was co-chair in the last parliament. The bill will give teeth to the joint committee and will empower members of the House and the Senate to democratize our rights in Parliament.

This bill is in the same form as Bill C-202 which I introduced in the previous session. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, I wish to have this bill returned to its previous status before prorogation.

May I have unanimous consent to have this bill called Bill C-202 rather than any other number?

Canada Health Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, I wish to return to the Order Paper my bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Health Act for first reading today.

This bill is identical to the one I introduced during the last session, at which time it was known as Bill C-407. I would like to see the bill revived during this session and placed at the same point in the order of precedence where it was when Parliament was prorogued.

I thank the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for seconding it. This bill would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, that of respecting Canada's linguistic duality.

This is an important bill for all linguistic minorities across the country. I look forward to the three hours of debate and the vote further on in this session.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)