Bill C-475 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (order-making power)

This enactment amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to, among other things, give the Privacy Commissioner the power to make compliance orders and the Federal Court the power to impose fines in cases of non-compliance.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, with all this discussion about rolling up the rims or carpets, it seems like the NDP—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I appreciate the enthusiasm from the House at this time in the evening, but if members have conversations they want to carry on that have nothing to do with the debate, please take them outside the chamber.

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

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

Mr. Speaker, getting order is always an important part of House business.

The hon. member for Welland brought up the topic of rolling up the rim and rolling up red carpets and whatnot. I would just like to remind the NDP members that they should really be rolling up their sleeves and working in the House for Canadians.

I have a part comment, part question, and I will try to put it as succinctly as I can. The member said, and other members have stressed this as well, that 170 different statutes have gone through the House that somehow are not lawful. He says that there are cases where incorporation by reference has not been used properly. That is not true.

Each one of these bills has gone through our process here. As parliamentarians, if there are any mistakes that have gone through, it has been under our supervision.

I would simply invite the member to take a look at what is being presented, a codified way, recommended by the scrutiny of regulations committee. I would like to hear if the member actually has an amendment he would like to carry forward. There is continual discussion about the need for amendments. I would like to hear what that amendment would be.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly roll up my sleeves, in fact, I will roll them up now, but I do not think the Speaker will let me take my jacket off, since that is in the House rules.

The issue is clearly one of who wants to look at this. As I said earlier in my remarks, the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla actually does. There is no question that he truly finds great passion in this, and I commend him for that.

There is not a lot of folks in the House who would actually want to sit on that committee. If I asked volunteers to put their hands up if they really wanted to go on that committee, I would probably not find too many hands. There is a couple and a couple more.

For my colleague, the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, he ought to write those names down. Then the next time you need a sub in, you should ask those folks who put their hand up to come and help you out—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would again point out to the member for Welland, please direct your comments to the Chair.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you could help me inform the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, it looks like there might be friends who want to substitute in for him when he is not available to go to his committee.

All I can say to my friend across the way, through you, Mr. Speaker, is “stay tuned”. He will be at the committee and he will hear what good constructive amendments are going to come from the New Democrats.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the issue of incorporation by reference.

I made reference to this earlier, and will continue to do so, in regard to the third party. It does not even have to be a government agency. It could be any sort of a standard organization, anywhere internationally, nationally or wherever it might be.

We should focus attention on international standards, where there is a third party of that nature which develops a standard. Quite often that standard will be unilingual, primarily in English but there are other languages.

The Liberal Party has expressed concern with regard to Canada being a bilingual nation and the impact of not having both official languages being properly recognized through a delegated regulation.

Would the member share that concern we have expressed and is that one of his amendments?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being in a caucus that has a predominant number of members, great colleagues, great friends, from the great province of Quebec, clearly we understand the need. Our country is indeed a bilingual country. We have two official languages. The House recognizes that we work in both of them. In fact, all hon. members agree with that and do their utmost to ensure we continue to do that.

The weakness we see is the potential for third party regulators to do something that perhaps would not be in both official languages. We do not know that this would happen, but the potential is there. This is why that clearly becomes a piece that needs to be looked at as the bill is scrutinized at second reading, in committee and is given the due diligence that it deserves and needs to have put to it.

I would hope one of the things that comes back to the House is the sense that if we are to go down this road, in whatever way that happens, both official languages will always be, first and foremost, a requirement of those particular regulatory changes as we move forward.

I look forward to those discussions and we will see where it takes us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague on his excellent speech, which shed a great deal of light on Bill S-12.

Since the bill raises a huge number of questions and concerns, we want to support it so that it is sent to committee and we can propose amendments.

In November 2012, the hon. Mac Harb shared some of his observations. He said:

...Bill S-12, as presented, undermines democratic principles by eroding Parliament's oversight of legislation, and it will make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens who will not have adequate access to the content of Canadian laws.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that colleagues have pointed out a number of times tonight is the potential to change things and then expect folks to understand them or know about them and perhaps have illegal implications. That is what stands out for folks as well as ensuring it is in both official languages. It becomes a dilemma for people who have to follow a regulation under the penalty of perhaps the law not knowing that it has actually changed. They may be living under a regulation that no longer exists.

My colleague for Okanagan—Coquihalla talked about where the number 170 came from. When the Minister of Justice came before the committee he said that since 2006, he found that the express authorization of Parliament had not been given to changes 170 times. Therefore, the number 170 comes from the Minister of Justice, from the Conservative government. He gave the committee that number.

I know the hon. member for Niagara Falls quite well, and I know him to be a very honourable man. Therefore, when he said that it happened 170 times, I believe him, quite frankly. Albeit, there may have been some confusion around some different thing, and there were issues around this happening. However, we need a process that actually works, and that is what this debate is about.

We want the bill to go to committee to be studied in an appropriate way. If changes need to be made to it, which we think there should be, then those changes will be made. Indeed, it will come back as better legislation. If not, I guess we will vote and figure out where it goes. Ultimately, it is about trying to work the legislation.

I hope my friends on the other side would see this in the sense that we should study the bill and make it better. At the end of the day, we are entrusted to make better legislation. When we say that we want the bill to go to committee to look at it, debate it, have witnesses and propose amendments to make it better legislation, surely the government wants us to do that.

In fact, I know it does because I heard the Prime Minister say so many time since I came to this place in 2008. I am paraphrasing but the Prime Minister would look across the way to us and say “give us your good ideas”. Well, we are going to give our good ideas. The Prime Minister asked for them and we are about to give them. Hopefully the Conservatives will see they are good ideas and accept them.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I have been looking forward to speaking to this particular issue for some period of time, actually. Indeed, if we really look at it, we will see many important aspects of the incorporation by reference in regulations act. In fact, it speaks about the future, about being prepared for the future and about making sure that we are able as a government to adapt to what is new.

I speak particularly of change relating to, for instance, the world economic crisis. Our government responded in a very positive way, much like we would with changes to regulations to respond to international or domestic treaties. I would say that we responded by way of an infrastructure rollout such as this country has never seen before. I speak particularly of Canada's economic action plan and the investments in roads, street lights, security for airports, and water and waste water infrastructure. I speak of many recreational facilities across this country that have benefited Canadians. I also speak about the thousands upon thousands of jobs that Canada's economic action plan created, especially in provinces that do not have the economic activity of my province. I speak specifically of Quebec, where I have seen an increase in the quality of life through roadways, water and waste water infrastructure and a cleanup of the environment. All of these things were brought in as a result of change, and the need to change, by our Conservative government.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to come as somewhat of a surprise to you. Not only has Canada been the most successful country in the world with respect to the economy, but there was one party in the House that voted against each and every one of those economic activities. It is true. Even my colleagues cannot believe it. There were members in the House who voted against Canada's economic action plan, the plan that has been raved about by the G8 and G20 and that has identified Canada as having the best banking system in the world and one of the most successful recoveries, with over 900,000 net new jobs. That party was the New Democratic Party in the House. I witnessed it with my own eyes when New Democrats voted against job recovery. They are applauding now, because they remember what they did. They remember that they stood against this government as we created what can only be said is the best recovery in the world from a deep world economic crisis.

The Liberal Party supported us in some of those bills. I would have to give it credit. Of course, Canadians looked at it a little differently, and that is why they returned the Liberal Party with the fewest number of members in its history. I think that had something to do with the $25 billion it stripped from provincial transfers back in the 1990s. Speaking of changes in statutory instruments, Liberals changed the way the law worked. They changed how provinces and the federal government are supposed to work.

We know, for instance, about the relationship we have built up as a Conservative government with all of the provinces and territories, with every level of government, including, of course, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which today identified this Conservative federal government as a government that is prepared to act in the best interests of Canadians by coming forward with a new infrastructure plan, which it was very satisfied with.

We have done a lot that has been asked of us and we have done that because of the need for change. Change comes in many ways. This bill talks about drafting techniques that offer many advantages because for example, reducing needless duplication or repetition of materials such as provincial legislation when there are current federal and provincial legislative regimes that need to be harmonized.

That is what this government does. Our job is to represent Canadians in the best way we possibly can in saving them money that is unnecessarily spent, by standing up, as the NDP now knows it should have, to support our government when we brought forward $45 billion of economic activity in partnership with provinces, territories and municipalities.

In 2004, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities identified $123 billion in an infrastructure deficit across this country. As a result of 13 years of the Liberals ignoring provincial and territorial governments and stripping $25 billion from their transfers, we had no choice but to react immediately and come up with a plan, a one-page application, a simple process that we have had tremendous reviews about. We work with provincial governments to bring one third, municipal governments bring in one third and we invest one third of Canadian taxpayers' money back into roads and bridges. The NDP voted against it.

There might be some repetition in tonight's speeches because I am very passionate about the opportunity to speak. Some parties in this place, in my mind, do not represent Canadians as they should, especially when we are faced with an economic crisis like the world has never seen before. That is the time when all of the members in House elected by Canadians should stand with the government to protect our economy and our jobs.

We have seen an amazing thing happen over the last 20 years; first the Liberals ignoring Canadians and stripping the $25 billion in transfers and then the New Democratic Party not standing up for Canadians. It is rather shameful and I understand their passion in relation to that.

I would like to answer a couple of questions regarding the incorporation by reference in regulations act because it is very important. Obviously, this government does make changes as necessary and we are doing it in this case as well. One might ask what is incorporation by reference. It is a legislative drafting technique most often used in regulations and it consistently allows the reference documents to form part of the regulations without actually being reproduced. That means that as a result of laying down proper ground rules we do not need to cut down a lot more trees. In fact it not only saves the trees, but it is more economically viable for the country. There is no sense in wasting taxpayers' money. They work hard for it.

In my riding most people work 12 hours a day and then they travel about two hours back and forth to go to work, about 30 kilometres. They enjoy one of the best qualities of life in the world and certainly one of the best qualities of life in Canada. The Clearwater River Valley, only about three blocks from my home, is one of the most beautiful places in the world to fish. I have posted on Facebook a picture of my fishing boat. I think it is time for a change, just like the change necessary for incorporation by reference in regulations act. That change is my opportunity to return to my constituency, go two blocks down to the Clearwater River Valley and to go fishing with my constituents and supporters for some period of time this summer. That is the change that I am looking forward to.

It is unfortunate that I am running out time. The types of regulations that use incorporation by reference would be shipping and marine safety acts, energy efficiency acts and hazardous products. I would hate to see the NDP stand in the way of all the safety products and marine products that need to be brought in as well by this legislation.

I see my time is up. I would just like to say in closing that I really hope the NDP supports this government in the future and sees how important it is that we make these changes in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that this party did not vote against economic action.

I voted against eviscerating environmental legislation. I voted against paying temporary foreign workers 15% less than Canadians. I voted against bringing temporary foreign workers in to replace Canadians in their jobs. I voted against seniors having to work another two years. I voted against removing protection from the Humber River, the Clearwater River and hundreds and thousands of other rivers as part of the economic action plan. I voted against failing impoverished seniors. I voted against cuts to the disabled. I voted against cuts to EI.

That is our record. That is what we did, and that is what we will continue to do when the government continues to hide these horrible things inside other legislation.

As far as this particular piece of legislation goes, you have heard from me already. I am very nervous about where the power-hungry and power-seeking Conservative government is going to take it, but we are willing to send it to committee so that we can try to improve it. I do not expect that the government will allow it to be improved, but we will see.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was here then and I do not remember them voting against that.

I do remember them voting against Canada's economic action plan. I remember them voting against the first $33 billion. I remember them voting against $12 billion in infrastructure stimulus. I remember them voting against just about everything we have put forward.

I judge by results, and I think that is what most Canadians judge by. They judge by whether they have a job or not. We have created over 900,000 new jobs.

We see that the member across the way voted against $241 million to improve on-reserve income assistance programs. He voted against $5 million to expand facilities at Cape Breton University for the Purdy Crawford Chair in Aboriginal Business Studies throughout Canada. He voted against $10 million to inspire and help young aboriginal people all across the country. What he voted against most of all, and every time in the House, is the opportunity to train aboriginal Canadians to have jobs in colleges, universities and trade schools right across the country.

That is what we are doing as a government. We are making sure that we stand up not only for the youth of the country, who have one of the highest unemployment rates of any group and sector in the country, but also for the aboriginal and needy people right across the country.

It is not about a handout; it is about a hand up, so that people can feel good about themselves, take pride in what they do and feel good about being Canadian.