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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I see there is a great deal of discretion extended to the member in not being relevant to the bill, even though he did make reference to it periodically.

That said, it is interesting that the member talks about the Canada economic action plan. Every Canadian knows about it. They do not have a choice. The government is using millions of tax dollars on advertising. With every ad we see on the NHL, imagine the government said, "Put $100,000 on an ad and deny 32 summer students a job".

That is the priority. The government's priority is a net increase in taxes. That is the reality of the government: hundreds of millions of dollars in net tax increases. What about annual deficits and the huge deficit? The government started with a surplus and turned it into a billion-dollar deficit. That is the record of the Conservative government.

My question to the member in regard to the bill itself is about international standards. Does he not share the concerns that we have expressed regarding third parties being able to incorporate laws that would be applied to all Canadians? Could it mean standards being applied from a unilingual organization? Does he not have a concern about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked that question. What type of material is incorporated by reference? Federal, provincial or foreign legislation. This includes standards developed as part of Canada's national standards system, including those of the Canadian Standards Association, the CSA. There are currently over 400 references to these types of standards in federal regulations.

International standards, such as the standards written by the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, most people see that. Members will see we are taking care of business.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here at 11 o'clock at night to have the opportunity to speak to the Statutory Instruments Act.

First, I am not very pleased that the bill has come from the Senate. I find this is an inappropriate direction for legislation of this nature. It should have come from the House of Commons.

Right now, at the aboriginal affairs committee, we are dealing with another piece of legislation, Bill S-8, which also came from the Senate. That legislation has been panned by almost everyone who is standing in front of our committee because it does not have the ability to provide resources for the things that are required within the bill.

A Senate bill cannot put a financial burden on the government. Therefore, that bill is not effective. It is also the wrong direction, as well.

That aside, when we look at the bill, it is an interesting one. I think we have all learned a lot through this debate tonight, and I am sure the debate will continue on it because it is a very important bill. As my colleagues pointed out, it would make 170 decisions of the government legal after being illegal for a number of years.

There is a lot to regulation. There are 3,000 regulations on the books, consisting of 30,000 pages. There are also 1,000 draft regulations every year. That says that those 3,000 regulations are being changed constantly. There is change within the system. That change has the scrutiny of Parliament, its officers and its staff. That is taken care of within the confines of our Government of Canada.

We now have a bill that would open up change to our regulations from a variety of sources that we would no longer have control over. What is going to happen here?

In the bill, there is a section which says, “The power to make a regulation also includes the power to incorporate by reference an index, rate or number”. Now, we do not have definitions of those three things, but I guess we can assume that they cover most of the gamut of what regulations are. It goes on to say, “as it exists on a particular date or as it is varied from time to time”. Therefore, as it varies, it can be incorporated. It goes on to say, “established by Statistics Canada, the Bank of Canada”, all good institutions. I do not have a problem with those institutions helping with regulations. Then it says, “or a person or body other than the regulation-making authority”

As my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca said, this can be Canadian regulations, it can be provincial regulations, or it can be international regulations.

We now have a situation where we are going to incorporate regulations under Parliament that are made in other countries. It sounds good. Countries make choices. They may be very good choices. However, those regulations can also be varied in those countries and we have no control over that. We would have no control over what would go on with those regulations when they are varied in those countries.

How does that fit with sovereignty? I am not here to sell Canadian sovereignty. That is not my goal in this Parliament, I am sorry. Canadians need to control the regulations that are created by Parliament. They need to have a say over how those regulations are changed, whether they come through the provinces, whether they come through bodies in Canada, or whether they come through international bodies. That is quite clearly the case. That is what most Canadians will want.

What we have is a situation where we need some amendments to the bill. We need to limit the ability to take on changes that are made in bodies outside our country. We need to ensure that changes made to regulations that are made within Canada have the scrutiny of Parliament through its procedures, through its committees that are set up to do exactly that. Those are types of amendments that could be made to the legislation to make it more palatable to most people when they understand the nature of what is going on with this innocuous named bill.

It does not sound very threatening and, if handled correctly in the interest of Canadians, with the understanding of Canadian sovereignty, it works out quite well, unless it is used as a tool in international trade agreements to take on regulations so that we can make trade deals with other countries and take on their regulations.

We are into the European Union right now. The European Union will demand a lot of things of Canada. It is going to demand that Canada do things the way the European Union does them. That is what it wants, if we want to have a trade deal with the European Union.

This is an opportunity to give the European Union exactly that. We could take on the regulations of the European Union for many things. We could put them into our system, and in the future, if they make changes to those regulations, those will fit into our system as well.

How does that fit with sovereignty? I do not buy it. I stand here today and say that if I do not hear a better argument against this, I cannot buy this legislation. If I do not see some kind of amendments in it that actually protect my country from having changes made to its laws by other countries without the scrutiny of this Parliament, I cannot buy that. That is not for me. If it is for you, then I say you should go back to your constituents and tell them what you are doing with Canada.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he is telling you to go back to your constituents.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The “you” can be used in the collective, generic sense, and that is the way I interpret it being used on this occasion.

I have to advise the House that I did not feel any compulsion to react and take action as a result of the “you” used in this context.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I have to say that your wisdom has increased ever since you have become a Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Oh come on, apologize.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The foreign investment protection act is another piece of legislation that just went through. The foreign investment protection act means if we change legislation regulations in Canada and it does not fit what the foreign investors had expected from our country, then they have the right to complain, to take action.

All of a sudden now we are in a position where regulations that are decided somewhere else by someone else other than this Parliament can make that a probability, perhaps a reality. Those are things we have to think about with this.

We are changing the way we are doing business. Is the way we are changing doing business the way we want to do that? I would say right now that, to me, amendments to the bill are needed.

I understand why people want to have the bill, the necessity to do the things that make sense with the bill. It is good to have regulations that can recognize inflation and the changing nature of our society, that can do those things that make sense. I do not have a problem with that. I am in favour of that, but I am not in favour of impeding our sovereignty in any way through changing the way we make regulations. That is clear. I do not have to think twice about that.

When we talk about Bill S-8, about the safety of drinking water on our first nations reserves, we are talking about a law that enables regulations, and those regulations will probably be made in provinces. Those provinces will change those regulations for safe drinking water as time goes on. That is the reality of the situation.

We have a fiduciary responsibility to first nations in the government. We need to ensure that any changes that are made to regulations are run by the first nations to whom we will apply this law. Therefore, we need to have the opportunity to look at changes, to consult with our first nations about changes that are made by provinces if we adopt their regulations to govern safe drinking water on first nations reserves. There is another instance of why we need to look at this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few members who have spoken tonight obviously believe in the independence of the Bank of Canada, and that is a great thing. The member for Timmins—James Bay has actually said publicly that part of the NDP policy would be to interrupt that independence. I am glad to hear we have NDP members who disagree with that. Many economists believe that neutrality is very important and fundamental to the Bank of Canada.

Specific to what the member has said, sovereignty is always Canada's. We debate here in the House and we pass laws. Those laws then go to the delegated authority, whether it be a minister's office or whatnot. Regulations are created and those regulations are then put in the Gazette. The Gazette calls for open consultation. The whole process is there. Everything is lawful and has the scrutiny of Parliament. In fact, a committee is in charge of that. I would suggest the member become familiar with that.

We hear time and time again that NDP members will support the legislation but they might want to have amendments. Every member I have asked tonight has declined to point to one area where they would put forward an amendment. We know the official languages component is there. We know there is due process and we are not giving up sovereignty.

I would ask the member to bring up one amendment that he thinks needs to be brought into this bill at justice committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is the late hour or perhaps that very enthusiastic member has been listening to a lot of the debate intently and perhaps he missed it when I mentioned the type of amendments I would like to see made to the bill.

I said I would like to see amendments that would ensure that any regulatory change that came through the incorporation by reference of any regulations, any of those changes that were made by any body other than the Parliament of Canada, would be subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament. That type of amendment would give us comfort that that is going to happen with this legislation.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

This bill is far from perfect. We need only look at the work of the Senate committee and the debate that was held in the Senate to see that this bill has some serious flaws. That is why we want to study it further in committee and hear from experts to find out what can be changed.

One of the flaws in this bill is that many of the terms are rather vague, including the word “accessibility”. What is meant by accessibility? When the bill says that information is accessible, does it mean that the information is public, or does it mean that the information will be accessible to people who have special needs, for example?

Can my colleague comment on the senators' work and the flaws in this bill?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really touch on the issue of accessibility, but accessibility in terms of understanding regulation would probably be determined by the ability of whoever is dealing with these regulations to have the kind of professional assistance that is needed to wade through regulations and understand how they work.

I have been in business and I know that the regulations that are needed to conduct a business in many cases are very complex, and they require a very good understanding of them. There are many. Sometimes in business one understands the regulation but if it changes, one can be caught many times. That is a reality of life in business. A small business without the resources to ensure it has accountants and lawyers working for it to understand the regulations well may find it has innocently broken the regulations. That is the unfortunate reality of life in this country.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how relieved I am to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I was not sure when it first came up that I wanted to speak to it, but I started to receive a lot of calls and emails from concerned Canadians, Semhar Tekeste. She said to me that I had to get in and speak to this bill and that it was very, very important. She called me so many times today. She emailed me a number of times and said that I had to get into the House and talk about this bill. She said specifically that Bill S-12, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the statutory instruments regulations is very important, and she wanted me to come in here and speak to it. The more I looked at it, the more I thought to myself that it is a very important bill.

The member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca earlier talked about how hard his constituents work. They work 12 hours a day, and then they sometimes have to drive a couple of hours to get home. I wonder how they would feel knowing that the opposition cannot wait to get out of here. We hear so much about the orange wave, the orange tide. Apparently, the tide does not come in after 6 o'clock. After 6 o'clock that is the end of the tide. They do not want to come into work. They are too tired.

We should make no mistake. Canadians do not pay us a little to be here. All of us are very fortunate. We make $150,000 to be in this place to debate the issues that are important to Canadians, yet the NDP members want to go home. I have heard them all day talk about how lazy the Senate is, and they want to abolish the Senate. I now understand why the NDP members are so desperate to abolish the Senate. They are actually embarrassed that the Senate works harder than they do, so they want to abolish the Senate. It is actually unbelievable. Here we are in a time of global economic uncertainty, and at 10 o'clock, they have to go home. I cannot fathom that. I guess, on their behalf, I will apologize to all those Canadians who invest so much in this place.

My parents came to this country. They worked hard. I talked about this last night. They owned a pizza store when I was young. They got up at 10 o'clock every morning, and they were at the store. They worked all day and all night until 3 o'clock the next morning. They worked very hard to support the family. They never once complained. They worked extraordinarily hard, long hours. They never once complained about how difficult their lot was in life. They did not try to pass a motion to go home at 10:30. When people called the store and wanted to order pizza, they did not say they had to vote because they maybe wanted to go home early. They did not do that. They did what all other Canadians do. They worked hard. They invested in their families. They invested in their business, and they were proud to do it. I wish sometimes that the NDP, and in fact the Liberals, would actually consider those hard-working Canadians who have sent us here before they decide to go home.

We also heard the opposition talk about the loss of Canadian sovereignty. It seems to me that I have heard this before. That is what the NDP said when it opposed the auto pact. It opposed the auto pact because it worried about sovereignty. Free trade came around, and it did not want free trade, because it felt we would lose our sovereignty. The fact of the matter is that the auto pact created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Free trade has created millions of jobs and incredible economic growth in our country. We have not lost sovereignty. In fact, we have increased our sovereignty, because now we are one of those countries in the world where everyone wants to invest. We have created over 900,000 jobs, in part because we are open to trade, yet they want to turn their backs on that.

When I heard the member from Fort McMurray talk about his hard-working constituents, I could not help but feel somewhat embarrassed for the NDP and Liberals, because they had to go home early. However, let me tell all Canadians, who I know are watching intently, especially on this particular debate on this bill, that the Conservatives on both sides of the House will stay here, debate and talk about the issues that are important to them, no matter how long it takes to make sure that we continue this economic recovery we have seen.

Let us talk a bit about this further. I will read this to the House. It states:

...regulations that use this technique are effective in facilitating intergovernmental co-operation and harmonization, a key objective of the Regulatory Cooperation Council established by our Prime Minister and President Obama.

How exciting is that? This would eliminate red tape. I understand that on that side of the House red tape is something they revel in because it confuses people. It slows down the economy. It makes it harder for business.

On this side of the House we are all about eliminating red tape. We are about unleashing the potential of the economy, of small businesses, of those sectors that create jobs, economic growth and value for Canadians, all of which help put more money in the pockets of Canadians so they can invest in themselves and their families. That is what we are trying to do on this side of the House each and every day. Even if the NDP members are desperate to shut down debate, like they do every single night in this place, we will still work on that.

It goes even further to state:

Referencing material that is internationally accepted rather than attempting to reproduce the same rules in the regulations also reduces technical differences that create barriers to trade—

That part is so exciting. I will read it again because it references something I know the NDP know nothing about, which is trade.

Referencing material that is internationally accepted rather than attempting to reproduce the same rules in the regulations also reduces technical differences that create barriers to trade—

How exciting is that for the millions of Canadians at home watching this tonight thinking that finally they have a government that is prepared to make those types of changes so that we can make things better for them?

I will flip over a couple of pages because this is where it gets really exciting. It mentions that with this important regulatory tool come corresponding obligations. It then states:

[The bill] not only recognizes the need to provide a solid legal basis for the use of this regulatory drafting technique, but it also expressly imposes in legislation an obligation on all regulators to ensure that the documents they incorporate are accessible—

It is almost remarkable that we have waited so long to pass this. Honestly, we have been seized with a global economic crisis in this country. We have been seized with putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. We have been seized with opening up new markets for our manufacturers and getting new trade deals out there. We are working on a trade deal with the European Union. We have been seized with creating better relations with our American friends.

We all know what the Liberals did to our relations with the United States when they were stomping on dolls of the American presidents and insulting them all the time. We came to an historic low in those bilateral relations.

We have been bringing our budget back into balance while at the same time investing in Canadians and infrastructure across this country so that as we come out of the global economic downturn ahead of anybody else, we have the resources and the infrastructure in place so that our Canadian businesses, families and communities can succeed.

I am yelling a bit because I was not sure that the microphones are working. I heard the member from Hamilton and the member for Newton—North Delta screaming so much I thought the microphones were down, so I thought I would elevate my voice.

I am proud of the fact that this concerned Canadian called me and sent me an email as late as 10 o'clock asking me to come and talk to the bill. I responded that for her and for the millions of Canadians who are relying on us, I am prepared to work late and do whatever I have to do to make sure that this economy and this country remain great. I am only sorry that the opposition members do not feel that same sense of passion.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after that vote we had, I was extremely excited because my colleagues across the room came to life for the first time this evening since seven o'clock. Suddenly they are ready to speak and actually participate in parliamentary debate. Let us have a big round of applause for my colleagues across the way.

Also, while we are praising ourselves, I want to remind my colleague across the way that for youth in this country, unemployment is at double digits. I am told this piece of legislation here, this technical bill, will open up all kinds of doors, but when we look at it, what is it? Its aim is to give more power to the executive branch so that regulations can be changed without parliamentary scrutiny. Is this the job creation policy of the government across the way? Is this it?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in debate, I talked about the NDP. It was formed in 1961. In 1962 we had an election in this country, and the New Democrats lost. In 1963 we had an election, and they lost. In 1965 we had an election, and they lost. In 1968 we had an election, and they lost. In 1972 we had an election; they lost. In 1974 we had an election; they lost. In 1979, they lost. In 1980, they lost. In 1984, they lost. In 1988 and 1993, they lost. In 2004 and 2000, they lost.

One would think that a party that has lost 16 straight elections would finally come to understand that maybe what its members are talking about does not resonate with Canadians. One would think that especially a member from British Columbia who has just seen her party go from 20 points ahead in the polls to losing an election would at some point think to herself that maybe what they are doing just is not working, that maybe Canadians have no confidence in them and that is why they have lost so many elections.

Our job creation is one of the best in the world. I will take our record of job creation any day over the NDP's plans for a $21-billion carbon tax that would devastate the economy.