This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in September 2008.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-207, An Act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
I thank my colleagues for the report stage concurrence so that we could hear what members have to say. I understand there are a number of speakers.
Very briefly, this enactment would provide:
--that any Act or provision of an Act that is to come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation or order of the Governor in Council must be included in an annual report laid before both Houses of Parliament if it does not come into force by the December 31 that is nine years after royal assent. The Act or provision is repealed if it does not come into force by the following December 31, unless during that year either House resolves that it not be repealed.
The enactment applies to all Acts — whether introduced in either House as Government bills, private members' public bills or private bills — that provide for a coming-into-force date to be set by the Governor in Council. It does not apply to Acts or provisions that are to come into force on assent or on a fixed date provided by the Act.
The enactment includes a transitional provision for provisions that were amended during the nine-year period before the enactment comes into force.
This is a bill from the Senate. Senator Tommy Banks has been working on this bill for a number of years. It did receive passage through the Senate at all stages.
The public may wonder why this bill is here and how it is that when both the House of Commons and the other place do all our work with due diligence, and get a bill passed and get royal assent, the bill has not been put into force. In other words, it is not active law. It sits in limbo until a subsequent government decides to proclaim the bill and put it into force, and there are some reasons for that.
However, there are two full bills which are acts in themselves, which are over 10 years old and have received royal assent, but they have not been proclaimed by the government. There are also 57 other pieces of legislation which are amendments to other acts, which are also over 10 years old and they still have not been proclaimed in Parliament by the government of the day.
The question is whether we should have a procedure in which we can effectively create a sunset clause with reasonable provisions, and should there be good reason for a bill not being proclaimed or not being put into force, there should be an opportunity to do that without frustrating all of the work that has been done.
In checking the work already done, it appears that this is a lot more complicated than members may think. This issue involves a number of constitutional and procedural questions, and a number of questions about what happens if a provincial jurisdiction has enacted similar provisions but the Government of Canada has not. For example, if we repeal provisions, will that affect the provincial jurisdiction and the application of the law? There are some excellent questions on behalf of all hon. members in both chambers who participated in the debate.
Unless either the House of Commons or the Senate takes action, this bill would cause these acts to automatically be repealed if they have not been brought into force within 10 years of receiving royal assent.
There are exceptions for provisions that have been amended before the bill comes into force. For instance, if there has been some action on a bill within at least the last 10 year period, there are provisos that this 10 year period would be extended for a further 10 years beyond when the amendment has been made. In other words, should a bill be reaching that 10 year point of triggering the repeal and any changes made to that legislation, there would be an extended period of a further 10 years, so there is a safeguard, as it were.
However, the issue here is the reason why a bill was brought forward. It may have been conditional in anticipating other matters occurring, or there may have been subsequent events which would render the bill either ineffective or unnecessary.
I understand there are a number of members who want to speak and in view of the fact that there was not much opportunity in earlier stages, I am going to conclude my remarks there and indicate that it appears that there is a very sound basis for the House to be considering this act to repeal acts which are not legislation, and which have not come into force within 10 years of receiving royal assent.
It also appears that there are adequate provisions within the bill to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that the tools are available to Parliament to ensure that there is an efficient use of the process and the time of the chamber.
I wish to thank the hon. Senator Banks for his diligent work over a number of years to bring this matter to Parliament. I hope that the House will give it a positive vote at the end of third reading.
Statutes Repeal ActPrivate Members' Business
South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia
Conservative
Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and to the Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some discrepancy in what the hon. member was saying. Perhaps he did not mention it because his speech was short or perhaps I misunderstood him. I wish to understand the way the bill will work. I was not sure whether it will pertain to bills that were given royal assent or bills that had not yet received royal assent.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, even though a bill may have received royal assent, if it is not proclaimed, it is not active law.
I can give the member another example. The Federal Accountability Act was, in fact, passed in a prior Parliament and was given royal assent, but it was not proclaimed until the current government actually brought in its accountability bill, which made amendments to this act which had not been put into force, so that those things happened subsequently.
The member is correct. The bills have received royal assent, but they have not been proclaimed. That is the point that has not been made.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for the member. Could the member remind us in 10 words or less that there is a procedure that reminds people that this is happening, and it just does not drop off, so that all MPs would get a notice or something in case they wanted to preserve it?
Could the member also clarify that some bills, for example, where there is a proclamation decided by cabinet, do not need that proclamation, that it just happens? Those bills would not be a problem. It is only the ones that are proclaimed by cabinet or by governor in council.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. Yes, if the bill does prescribe an in force date, this bill will not be applicable simply because there will never be a 10 year period between the period of royal assent and proclamation.
With regard to the notice or how we keep track of this, the bill prescribes that there would be an annual report provided to both chambers which would advise them of the status of bills that are in that zone where royal assent has been given but not been proclaimed, and as they reach that ninth anniversary there would be at that point an obligation to do something.
It will be after the ninth anniversary that the trigger point of that effective notice will signal that in the next 12 month period the legislation must be either amended or it will be repealed.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to clarify as well for the record with the hon. member that what is happening here is a kind of a cleanup procedure because there actually is not a cleanup procedure in our general laws.
Bills that are passed by both our Houses do receive royal assent. The failure of the Crown to provide royal assent would be constitutionally alarming. Then governments normally proclaim the bills where the bill itself does not proclaim the bill to be in force on a specific date.
What I am suggesting to the hon. member and I am asking him to confirm here in a kind of a question is that where a government does not proclaim a bill in force, a law in force, it is very much through advertence. It is not inadvertence. It is for specific reasons that a government would not do this and it would be quite rare, but it does happen. The accumulation of some of these legal provisions over all of our years would just continue were it not for this type of a bill which would cleanup these unproclaimed sections.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River has very clearly stated the facts surrounding these cases. Right now we just do not have the mechanism to address these at some point. Where there is no further reason for a bill to be proclaimed, for whatever reason, Parliament would have the tool to repeal the act and clean the deck.
Norman Doyle Conservative St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments regarding Bill S-207.
It is well known that this government has from the beginning been supportive of the objective of the bill, which is to improve Parliament's oversight of the coming into force of its legislation. This is still the government's position.
When Bill S-207 was first tabled back in 2002, it opened a very worthwhile debate on an issue that is especially important for parliamentarians.
We as lawmakers have to deal on a regular basis with coming into force provisions that are generally quite straightforward but sometimes troublesome. I have wondered whether we do not rely too heavily on the government at times to decide when to bring legislation into force.
The coming into force of legislation is far from being only a technical or drafting issue. It deals with the existence of the legislation that we work so hard here to develop.
Coming into force provisions are the keys that open entire acts of Parliament. When we debate legislation in Parliament, often forcefully, and manage to amend some legislation to include protective mechanisms and balance the rights of everyone, we expect that these amendments will be integral parts of the new scheme.
We also expect that the laws we study will be implemented in their entirety with all the checks and balances we see in the legislation. In short, we expect to have a complete picture of the framework that will be put in place.
When we agree to let the government decide when it is appropriate to bring some provisions into force, it is because we have been given some reasonable explanations that stand at the time we adopt the legislation. However, what is missing is a general and permanent mechanism to review all of these decisions later when something does not go according to plan.
Senator Banks' Bill S-207 provides a very simple and efficient solution which would ensure that Parliament will be informed when provisions, and occasionally entire acts, that it had trusted to government to bring into force have not been brought into force after nine years.
As we know, Bill S-207 would require the Minister of Justice to report at the beginning of each calendar year on all acts and provisions that have not been brought into force in the past nine years. These acts and provisions would be repealed at the end of the year, unless during the year they are brought into force or exempted from repeal by a resolution of either House of Parliament.
This bill has been tabled several times before. It was debated at length in committee to the point of all parties supporting the bill.
The other place has completed its review of the bill. If it goes through third reading today, it should receive royal assent soon.
Bill S-207 clearly states that it would come into force two years after it is assented to. We could expect a first report from the Minister of Justice at the beginning of 2011 and start dealing with some overdue issues. Let me repeat that it will come into force two years after it has been given royal assent.
In closing, I want to thank Senator Banks for his initiative and also all of those who supported his proposal.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill S-207. As always, because of the position my party has taken with regard to the Senate, I raise the objection that the bill should not appear before us because we should be doing away with the Senate. It is doubly so that this bill should not be before us in that it has flowed out of the Senate and has been initiated there, in spite of the compliments we have heard for Senators Banks for the work he has done on it.
The reality is that this bill should not be a private member's bill at all. It should be a government bill. This is part of the failure of this government and the previous government to deal with this issue.
One can argue that perhaps it is a bit arcane, that it is an issue that is not of significant importance to the overall welfare of our country, but the reality is that if Parliament is to function properly, the type of housekeeping bill that this represents in fact should be dealt with. An issue like this should not be allowed to simply sit on the sidelines because the government, whichever party is in power at the time, just cannot be bothered to deal with it.
It is quite clear that the issue itself is one that has general all party support and that it should be dealt with in keeping with the terms of the bill. My party supports the concept that any legislation that has been outstanding for as long as 10 years should be repealed, unless there is a resolution from the House to extend the bill beyond that 10 year period.
This just seems so obvious that it begs the question why a government has not garnered all party support and just quickly moved ahead with it. I do not have an answer for that, other than the unwillingness on the part of a government to deal with what in fact is a relatively minor issue but one that should have been addressed a long time ago.
There are a number of bills, and in fact full laws, that have never been proclaimed, although they are in the minority. The larger number of bills that have passed through the House, through the Senate and are waiting for proclamation is well in excess of 50. They are amendments to existing laws and for whatever reason the government of the day opted not to proclaim them.
The bottom line on this, and the reason why it is important that we proceed with this legislation, is that it is a democratic principle that laws come into effect if they are passed by the elected body in the state where the legislation is being passed. If it is not going to be, it seems to me that members of this House should once again look at it and decide whether they want to pursue it and extend the life of that bill or allow it to die, but that we do it as a conscious decision.
It seems to me it is the essence of democracy that decisions are made by elected representatives from an informed standpoint. This bill provides the information to the House as to whether a bill that has been sitting around for 10 years unproclaimed should continue or be allowed to disappear off the order paper and no longer be of any consideration.
We are intending to support the legislation, but I again repeat my criticisms that this government and prior governments should have taken this on themselves. They should not have left it to an unelected body and a private member to pursue it.