That is what the bill says, dear colleague.
Does this government want to take over provincial areas of jurisdiction? Is this what they call flexible federalism? For me we are rather going backwards. Another attempt to pull a fast one on the provinces. This bill also questions the publication of regulations. This bill calls into question many other aspects. It is left to the Clerk of the Privy Council to decide whether all regulations should be published in the Canada Gazette as is now the case or in any other venue as he sees fit, either in special interest magazines or through electronic means.
What openness. Only the people and organizations directly concerned could have easy access to the regulations. This procedure fosters inequalities between people and between small businesses and large corporations, which, unlike small businesses, can afford lobbyists to keep a close eye on what the government is doing.
This kind of action is unconscionable. The clerk must be required to publish an official notice in the Canada Gazette . And to better spread the information, he may order that the regulations be published in a different venue. I have no problem with that. That is progress, that is transparency, and not a double standard policy where the government tries to hide some information. But there is worse than that in this bill.
This bill is indefensible, especially the clause that indicates that failure to publish a regulation does not invalidate it. That is where the shoe pinches. The government must at least be honest; people have the right to know which regulations are in effect. The official publication of the regulation must validate it. How could it be otherwise, if we want to insure equity to the people in general?
To some extent, this bill allows the privatization of commercial and industrial regulations, probably based on American standards, which opens the door to the introduction of standards written only in English.
Who will be responsible for translating an American code on screw and bolt strength requirements for the aircraft industry, for example? If such a code were available in French, what guarantee do we have that subsequent changes will be published in French by the American association?
By providing few guarantees, Canada is using cooperating agencies or countries to impose upon us standards and frameworks that do not concern us. With this legislation, in particular clause 19,
the federal government is trying, little by little, to minimize the Quebec culture by eroding our identity.
In its opinion, there is only one multicultural Canadian culture expressing itself in several languages, including French, but mainly in English.
Parliament scrutiny of the regulatory process is maintained in its existing form. The government should have taken the opportunity given by this act to improve distribution of regulations to all members of Parliament. The legislation should provide for the right of every member to have access to regulations through electronic means or at least through a printed copy. The whole body of federal legislation must be available. Yet, at present, members of Parliament do not have access to this work instrument.
In concluding, I would like to point out another anomaly the government is not correcting in this legislation. As soon as a bill is introduced in the House, the government has regulations drafted. If members had access to draft regulations when legislation is debated, we would avoid a loss of time in basic discussion and we would be in a better position to assess the impact of new regulations.
For all these reasons, I will vote against this legislation in its present form, but I will vote yes in the upcoming Quebec referendum.