Debates of Oct. 2nd, 1995

Regulations Act

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Bourassa, because it contained many good ideas. I hope he will sit on the standing committee on government operations, to which this bill will be referred. He will then have the opportunity to move amendments because, as he knows very well, the government introduced this bill and moved that it be referred to committee today, before second reading, so that he and other members on the standing committee can move all kinds of amendments. That is part and parcel of the new procedure introduced by the government at the beginning of this session of Parliament, and I certainly hope the hon. member will be on the committee with his ideas and amendments.

I think it is an extremely important procedure that is being followed on this particular bill. I say so because I think the bill has some deficiencies, some of which were pointed out by the hon. member in his speech, which cause me concern. I am sure the members of the committee will want to take a very careful look at it.

As a member of the scrutiny of regulations committee who has been working in this area for about two years now, I have my own concerns about this bill. I am sorry that it is not being referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, which has some expertise in this area among the members of the committee who have worked on this. Many of the members of the committee have worked on it a good deal longer than I have and are far more knowledgeable. I am sorry they are not going to have the opportunity to deal with it as a committee.

On the other hand, I strongly suspect some of us will attend the odd meeting of the government operations committee and make known our views in respect of certain aspects of this bill, which I hope will help the minister as he deals with it in committee and will help make the bill a better one for everybody in Parliament.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Bring Mary back.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I know the hon. members want to hear more from the hon. member for Halifax, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I too regret that her speech was limited to 10 minutes. I was enjoying her speech too. I also note her reference to hon. members opposite as barrels. I am sure they were enjoying that.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

At least we're full barrels, not empty like the government.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Well, the hon. member says that they are full barrels. I am not sure what they are full of.

I would like to deal with a few of the proposals in the bill. Rather than being distracted by the comments from the other side, I would prefer to stick to my own views on this bill today.

I want first to praise the minister for agreeing to allow the bill to be referred to committee before second reading. I believe it gives the committee maximum scope-notwithstanding the criticisms we have heard from the other side about this-to effect change to this bill should it find the provisions in the bill are unsatisfactory.

We know from the previous speaker's comments that the bill purports to repeal the Statutory Instruments Act and replace the definition of statutory instruments with a new definition of regulation. It allows among its provisions for the incorporation by reference of regulations or of descriptions in other documents promulgated by other organizations or other governments.

I know the hon. member for Bourassa in his remarks referred to clause 16 of the bill, which says that a regulation may incorporate by reference material produced by a person or body other than the regulatory authority, including a personal body such as an industrial or trade organization and a government agency or international body. He expressed some concern about that.

I have an additional concern. In clause 19 of the bill it says "Material does not become a regulation for the purposes of this act because it is incorporated by reference in a regulation". I have a slight concern, because a regulation is referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Will the material incorporated by reference also be referred to that committee? I believe it is important that it be so referred. If clause 19 will be argued as a means for saying that it is not before the committee, I would have concerns. That is a point that should be clarified in the course of the committee proceedings on this bill.

I note that clause 25 of the bill, which refers regulations to committees, does constitute an improvement over the existing law. There are certain statutory instruments currently now adopted that do not come before the scrutiny of regulations committee. The definition contained in this act widens the scope of the committee's work to allow it to see more than was otherwise the case.

I have attempted through questioning to elicit the lists of the kinds of things that would not now be referred to the committee, but without a lot of success. I fully anticipate the government operations committee in the course of its deliberations on this bill will be able to get that information. I am looking forward to seeing the list and I will review it of course with some care.

The fact that there is a wider definition of those things being referred is significant. I believe it represents an advance in the law. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Bourassa

-and his colleagues, the hon. members for Québec-Est and Chambly, expressing negative views on this bill.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Very negative.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Very negative, as the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is saying.

This is not necessary, because the bill is a good bill, with good ideas. There have been a lot of changes in this area of the law, and that is important. This is a renewal, and that is why it is important, because nothing was done in this area for several years.

The other aspect of the bill I wanted to mention was the fact that the changes the government is proposing in simplifying the whole regulatory process one hopes-it is a hope that is fervent on my part, but I am not sure I am fully expecting it to be fulfilled-will result in more efficient use of the regulatory process.

As a member of the scrutiny of regulations committee, one of the criticisms I have of the current process is the slowness with which things move. I know that citizens I run into who are operating businesses find it passing strange that it takes the government so long to make changes to regulations that are shown to be out of date and inapplicable in the circumstances.

I did not bring any horror stories with me today. I have not had a recent incident. However, I am aware that over the years members of the public have complained that a regulation is out of date, should have been changed, the standards in the industry have changed dramatically and the regulation no longer reflects industrial practice and is simply not enforced because nobody is obeying the regulation. Yet nobody gets around to making changes to it. Part of the reason no one gets around to making these changes is because of the time it takes to get changes effected in government regulations. It is a process that takes months or years. Because of that we have suffered.

The regulatory regime in Canada is nowhere near as good as it should be. It could be improved drastically if change could be effected more quickly. This bill will allow that. To that extent, it is a beneficial change. We may want to look at the ways it allows it, we may want to look at the safeguards built into the process, but the fact is that the bill does allow more efficiency. For that reason alone, I think it is worth supporting.

As I say, I am surprised to hear my colleague from Bourassa say that he will not vote for the bill at this stage when we are not approving it in principle. We are simply referring the bill to committee before second reading. I know what has happened. He has listened to somebody else in his party who decided that the party should vote against it and he is going along with that. If he had argued in the right places I think he could have convinced his leader and the other members of his party that they should be supporting the bill.

I am not sure of the position of the Reform Party. Unfortunately, I missed their speaker on this bill. But I understand that the Reform Party is also opposed to the bill.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

You missed more than that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The hon. member says that I missed more than that. I did miss more than that, but I understand there was only one speech made by the Reform Party on this bill. I do not know who made the speech. I suspect it was one of the members who is sitting here now. I am sorry I missed it. I am sure I would have enjoyed it. But whether it would have illumined me on the subject of the bill is another matter. Perhaps the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, when he makes his speech, will be able to comment on the pearls of wisdom, or otherwise, we heard from the Reform Party earlier this afternoon.

I would like to thank the minister again and praise him for bringing forward the bill. I believe it is important to have a look at this area of the law. This bill will allow the committee responsible to do that. I only hope that the members of the scrutiny of

regulations committee will have an opportunity to have some input on the bill during the course of committee deliberations.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, on this bill.

Today, once again, we have seen that the Liberal government is in favour of this democratic evolution, this modernization of the legislation, and we can see too that the two parties on the other side want to maintain the status quo. It is clear. Obviously, this is not surprising on the part of the Reform Party, because we know that these people are much like a species that disappeared millions of years ago, and I do not think it is necessary to mention the species we are talking about. However, we are a bit surprised by the hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois, because they claim they want progress, they want change.

Oh, well. Sometimes, they change things by going backwards, but I must say that I am a bit surprised to see that they are in favour of the motion before the House today. The motion now before the House is interesting, because we are not passing this bill. We are only talking about the House referring the bill to a parliamentary committee without first having approved it.

I could have read the exact motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), Bill C-84 would be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations before second reading. The bill deals with the registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations.

In other words, we are not asking members to tell us today if they are in favour or against the bill. The only thing the government is asking the House is for this bill to be discussed in committee, without first getting approval in principle at second reading stage.

So, we are not asking members opposite for their approval. We are asking for a parliamentary committee to consider this bill beforehand, to determine if we should approve it, with or without amendments. In other words, we want to find ways to improve the way we do things.

The member for Bourassa and others are in favour of the status quo. They are against progressive, flexible federalism as we see it on this side of the House. They are uncompromising, they are dead set on keeping the status quo and they refuse to let this bill go through.

You can see how our colleagues opposite are acting. They are very partisan and show a total lack of objectivity. We heard the member for Bourassa say in his speech that he thought the government could use this bill-and keep in mind that we are not voting on the bill, but only referring it to a committee for prior study-that this bill could be used against the French culture. Imagine that, we are talking here about a bill aimed at modernizing the regulations review process. Is the member not going too far?

The bill will do a number of things such as replace the rather antiquated and misunderstood phrase statutory instruments with something a little more modern like regulations. I must say that some of these terms confuse the best of us.

A moment ago I was saying to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, that the term statutory instruments was about as clear as a term used sometimes in real estate known as incorporeal hereditament. My colleague, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who I think is a real estate agent by training, will know what I am referring to. It is another way of describing curtain rods and such. It can mean more than curtain rods, but that is the thrust of the debate. I am told it can also mean sump pumps and the like.

The point I am making is that we have some terms in law that are confusing at the best of times. In this process we are studying at committee level the Regulations Act to modernize it. There could be places in the bill where the committee will offer changes or modifications to better the bill before it asks the House for approval in principle.

The important and operative point to remember is that the only matter being sought of the House right now is whether the bill should be studied in committee, not should it be approved in principle first and referred to a committee which is the normal way of doing business. Today that is not even being sought.

What do we hear from across the way but systematic obstruction that we are familiar with? Those members are married to the status quo. They want no improvement in the federation, no improvement in our laws and no modernization.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has informed us that he is very much interested in the issue, as he should be, because he is learned in the law. He will no doubt have an important contribution to make to that effect in committee.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations is very ably chaired by the hon. member for Fundy Royal. He is also a very well known lawyer and will be able to deal with the issue along with other members of the committee who will be studying the bill.

[An hon. member]

How many lawyers are there?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

A member across the way is asking how many lawyers are on the committee. I think it is a grand total of one.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

That is too many.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

A member across says that is too many to deal with statutory instruments. Perhaps we can have the benefit of the wisdom of the member who has made these utterances. In committee he will no doubt enlighten the rest of us on how to proceed with modernizing the statutory instruments of Canada.

I am sure the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau will be listening attentively. He too is learned in the law and will be listening to the immense contribution of the member across the way so he can inform us on how to better the statutory instruments or the regulations made pursuant to the laws of the land.

I know the hon. member across the way is just champing at the bit. I know he will make a profound discourse on the subject. My colleagues and I are all waiting anxiously to hear the comments of the hon. member across the way in the Reform Party who is heckling at the present time and who is obviously very anxious to participate in this very important debate this afternoon.

I want him to tell us exactly what the position of his party is with regard to referring the bill before second reading for a full study prior to approval in principle in the House of Commons and why it is his party is choosing to behave in that way, if not simply to say that it has no interest in making things in the House better or more modern.

I will say, in conclusion, that it is not too late for the member for Bourassa, the member for Drummond and others to change their mind and to vote in favour of this motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading.

In doing so, we are showing our intention, our desire, collectively and individually, to improve the laws of Canada. We will see in a few moments if the members for Bourassa, Mercier, Drummond and our other colleagues opposite are in favour of the status quo or if they are in favour of improvement. We will see in a few moments. But let us not hold our breath, because it is quite likely that these people will want the status quo because it suits their purpose in the current debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

The division on the motion is deferred until 6 p.m., at the request of the government whip.