Debates of Feb. 8th, 1995

Fresh Water

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent town hall meeting this issue was raised along with the deficit and the debt. I asked the audience that if we closed the borders to the U.S. and closed the borders to Canada so that there were no exports or imports, no exchange of goods and services, which country would last longer? Some constituents said naturally the U.S. because of its wealth, et cetera, that it is an influential superpower.

After a bit of discussion everyone in the audience agreed that Canada would last much longer. Why? Because of our resources. What is the most important resource? Water. In a way I am pleased that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has raised this issue. It has given us a forum to debate.

I wish that the Reform Party would not use fear tactics on the Canadian people. The issue of the export of water was raised during the free trade debate. It was calmed down. Then it resurfaced during the NAFTA debate. People got an answer and

they were satisfied. Now the Reform has raised this fear tactic again.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the secretary of state quoted a statement from NAFTA that the three countries signed. I will repeat it for the Reform Party so they can pass it on to their constituents. "The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement". It cannot be more clear than that. "Unless water, in any form, has entered into commerce and become a good or product" and the Secretary of State quoted the whole statement signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States. I do not know what further guarantee we want.

The follow-up speaker for the Reform Party compared Canada with Mexico. Again another fear tactic. Surely to goodness we do not in this House get up and compare Canada with Mexico. We have a strong Canadian dollar. It fluctuates, yes, but please do not compare the Canadian dollar with the peso.

Again, fear tactics are being used. I can assure the hon. member and I can assure Canadians that the policies we have in place do allow for the export of bottled water. What is wrong with that? We import water from Italy. We import water from France. We import water from Poland and from the U.S. They buy our water. I see nothing wrong with that.

We also have protection against re-routing rivers, et cetera. There is protection there. I do not know what further protection there could be.

The hon. member complained that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra finished off his debate by saying that we do not need any action. He said that no action is needed at the moment because of the legislation and the agreements that are in place now. He did not say that we do not need any action. Canada is continually vigilant and it has an excellent track record in initiating and pushing multilateral treatments such as the law of the sea.

Being born and raised in Saskatchewan I appreciate the value of water. We had plenty of well water in Saskatchewan, all we wanted, but we did not have any soft water. The only soft water we could get was what we caught from rainwater and spring snow to put into the cistern. One day the children, my brothers and I, were playing with the rainwater and we wasted almost a whole barrel. When Dad came home from town you know what we got. It was the belt he sharpened his razor on and we got it across the buttocks. That is how precious soft water was in Saskatchewan at the time.

That reminds me to this day how vigilant we have to be, and the government is. Even in the Arctic. The ice caps are water. Look at what happened when the U.S. dumped its submarines in the Arctic. We know how easily the Arctic can affect the environment of the whole hemisphere.

The hon. member knows we addressed that issue when we were reviewing our foreign policy. Hopefully the committee in planning its future work will address the whole issue of water, not only water in H2O form but also water in ice form, in ice caps on the mountains, in the air, et cetera.

If all three parties in this House co-operate I do not think we need any change in our present guarantees. That does not mean we should not be vigilant. From that standpoint I thank the hon. member for raising this in the form of a private member's motion so that we could have this debate in this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues, shall we call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As no other member wishes to speak and since this was not chosen as a votable motion, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 14, 1994, I questioned the Minister of Justice on four orders in council concerning prohibited weapons. January 1, 1995 was the infamous date that those orders were to become effective, much to the dismay of many honest gun owners in Canada.

It is common knowledge that many Canadians are upset with the minister's gun control package. The minister is feeling the heat from his own colleagues in the Liberal caucus who are against the intrusive gun control that he promised in his announcement.

In my question I referred to two court decisions, Repa and the Queen, 1982, and Theodore Pierce Simmermon and the Queen, 1993. In both cases the presiding judge made a ruling that the weapons order was invalid because it was not subjected to parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with section 116(2) of the Criminal Code:

The Minister of Justice shall lay or cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, at least thirty sitting days before its effective date, every regulation that is proposed to be made under subsection (1); and every appropriate committee as determined by the rules of each House of Parliament may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to the appropriate House.

Recently a third case has been heard in the courts, this time in British Columbia, Regina v. Martinoff. Vancouver provincial court judge H.J. McGivern followed the decision of the Alberta case.

In December I clearly asked the minister to explain to this House why he had not complied with this section of the code. Instead of answering my question, the minister went on to tell me that the orders in council were made under section 84 of the Criminal Code which does not require the sort of procedure outlined in section 116(2).

I understand the Criminal Code very well and I know that under section 84 the minister can initiate orders in council without the inclusion of a reference to Parliament as is set out in section 116(2).

However, I do not understand how the minister can cast a blind eye to three court cases in Canada that have overruled orders in council under section 84. What is the minister scared of by bringing such orders before the House and before an appropriate committee?

The minister stated in his response to me with respect to the case in Alberta that judgment was wrong in that respect and that he will succeed in the appeal. Clearly the minister should not be making a public evaluation on a specific case if the case is in the appellate division of the court. Rather, it should be the duty of the minister to look at the various courts and make decisions and comments based on the momentum of rulings.

The Liberal government prides itself on consultation processes and discussion papers. It has produced so many of them it is running out of colours to name these papers.

The Reform Party has always promoted consultation but only if there is a conclusion to the discussion. Why is it that a government supposed to be keen on openness did not discuss the topic of prohibited weapons?

Before the parliamentary secretary scribbles down an answer to tell me that there was an emergency for the overall safety of Canada, I want to fill him in on a few of the statistics taken from a survey of causes of death in Canada.

Statistics Canada in 1992, and it is about the same now, said that 155,746 people died of diseases, 90 per cent of all deaths in Canada. For example 3,437 died in car accidents, 2 per cent of all deaths. Thirteen hundred and fifty-eight died of AIDS, .7 per cent of all deaths. Two hundred and forty-seven died of homicides caused by firearms, that is, .14 per cent of all deaths. Sixty-three died of gun accidents, .03 of all deaths.

In addition, let me point out that based on these statistics it is 336 per cent more likely that a male will die as result of a gun than will a female.

The minister needs to put his priorities in the right place. He needs to let Parliament and therefore the people who elected us as members of Parliament to evaluate if certain firearms should be banned or prohibited.

I do not have a great amount of time but I want to ask the minister several specific questions and would greatly appreciate clear and precise answers. With three court cases before him, will the minister acknowledge that these are not isolated cases but rather cases of significance and bearing and that his decision to proceed with orders under section 84 was wrong and ill fated?

When a clear procedure is outlined, why would the minister make every effort to avoid it, thus causing further complications in the courts? Why would he not even live up to the spirit and the intent of Parliament? Given that in the end broad public support and co-operation is required for gun regulations to work, why would the minister risk his whole package in the public spirit of co-operation just to prove an obscure procedural point?

Will the minister call back the orders in council and resubmit them under section 116(2) enabling wider consultation and an honest democratic process?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the issue appears to stem from an interpretation of section 116 of the Criminal Code.

Through orders in council adopted pursuant to section 84 of the code, firearms may become prohibited or restricted.

It seems that in one case with which I am familiar, the case of Simmermon decided by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, it was ruled that these orders in council must be subjected to the procedure provided by section 116(2) of the code.

According to the section regulations made pursuant to section 116(1) must be laid before each House of Parliament at least 30 sitting days before they are to become effective so that public hearings may be conducted. It appears that the court felt that orders in council made under the authority of section 84 of the Criminal Code are also regulations adopted pursuant to section 116(1).

I understand that it is the view of the Attorney General of Alberta that this is not the appropriate interpretation and that an appeal of that Alberta Queen's Bench decision has been launched.

I was pleased to note that the Minister of Justice in his reply to the hon. member observed quite correctly in my view that orders in council made under the provisions of section 84(1) of the Criminal Code do not fall within the ambit of section 116 of the code.

The minister made his position quite clear: "Although there is a judicial decision of the trial court which holds that it is necessary even under section 84 to lay the regulations before the House, that decision is under appeal to the appellate division of the court in Alberta. We have every confidence the judgment was wrong in that respect and that we will succeed in the appeal".

Given the case is before the courts it would obviously be inappropriate to comment further other than to reaffirm our confidence that the court of appeal will rule that the making of orders in council pursuant to section 84 of the Criminal Code is not governed by the regulation making power of section 116 of the code.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in December I asked the President of the Treasury Board for his assurance that Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act, would not apply to the Fisheries Act or any other legislation which protects the environment. The minister replied that it is not the purpose of the bill to compromise environmental protection.

Although the proposed legislation is not intended to harm the environment, health or safety, the adoption of Bill C-62 would fundamentally alter the very structure through which regulations are both created and enforced. In other words, Bill C-62 poses a threat to what we have developed over decades in the form of national regulatory standards.

If regulation has become outdated or irrelevant, then let us change it. Apparently over the next two years 250 regulations are to be repealed and another 400 will undergo major revisions as a result of the findings in the 1992-93 regulatory review. Review of existing regulations will make the regulatory system more efficient but it will not threaten the fundamental premise of regulation making namely that regulations apply to everyone, rich and poor, regardless of influence or power.

Under Bill C-62, however, any minister would negotiate separate compliance agreements with any business or individual and replace designated regulations. It will be between the respective minister and individual applicant, not between Parliament and the Canadian public that individual agreements will be approved.

In addition, in certain cases where trade secrets are involved or if the agreements contain information which could threaten a company's competitive position, then secrecy would be invoked. Gradually then we can see how the regulatory system would change and we would face a situation over time in which there would be a standard for those who can afford law firms and consultants and another for those who cannot.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has stated that made to measure regulations as proposed in this bill would save, mostly to big business, over $3 billion a year. Treasury Board has pointed to these projected benefits but seems to have overlooked the cost side of the equation.

The proposed bill if enacted would lead to thousands of agreements. What will then be the cost to the public for approving, monitoring and enforcing such agreements?

In times of fiscal restraint does the government really want to establish a two-tier system of regulations based on separate negotiated agreements? Would that be in the public interest? Will approving, monitoring and enforcing thousands of individual compliance agreements further our quest for better levels of enforcement and standards?

Canadians by far prefer one regulatory system, one that applies equally to all, a regulatory system that leads to better results in the public interest. For this reason I ask whether the minister would withdraw the legislation and instead produce a white paper for public discussion.

In the meantime the Minister of Justice plans to introduce amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act very soon. The amendments are to simplify and accelerate the regulatory process and offer a better channel for achieving regulatory efficiency in an equitable and comprehensive manner.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is but one part of the government's overall approach to regulatory reform.

Over the past year we have been actively reviewing some 40,000 pages of regulations and moving to change hundreds of the most obsolete and problematic regulations in the next year. No longer will trains have to have spittoons, for example.

As well, we will be bringing in changes shortly to the Statutory Instruments Act that will create a more efficient and less time consuming way of developing and changing regulations. That is the second part of our plan for regulatory reform.

Bill C-62 is a third part of our program. What we are trying to do here is to create a tool for use in special circumstances only, where an individual or a company feels it can achieve the goals of regulation but wants to do so in a manner that is not exactly as laid out in a particular set of technical regulations.

We have carefully and painstakingly crafted these tools to make sure they do their job without reducing the protection that environmental or other regulations give the Canadian public. I would like to point out that the bill is one of the first pieces of process legislation ever tabled in the House of Commons that enshrines as an inviolate and absolute principle the goal of sustainable development.

It is the environmental movement, I point out, that has been at the forefront in recent years in urging governments to include sustainable development as a legislative principle. The act we are talking about explicitly does this. It says that no agreements can be approved under the act in any area whatsoever, unless it is considered with the goals of sustainable development, period.

The measures proposed in this bill are optional.

If the Minister of the Environment does not want to use them with respect to any set of regulations, she does not have to do anything, thereby effectively exempting those regulations from the application of the bill.

The bill is truly a democratic innovation. It will allow individuals, whether farmers, union members, taxpayers or even politicians, to force the government to examine its own regulations. From a common sense point of view it will force departments to look closely at possibly rigid, inflexible and often outdated rules to see if there is a better, cheaper and more sensible way to do things.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.43 p.m.)