Agreed.
House of Commons Hansard #58 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was property.
House of Commons Hansard #58 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was property.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
Bloc
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, once again, and believe me, very reluctantly, I pass through you to address the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. In administrative law, it was always stated in legislation "the Governor in Council may, by order", meaning an order from the House. This House could, therefore, ask the Governor in Council to adopt or promulgate this or that regulation.
Listen well-speaking to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Minister of State for Fisheries, via the Chair who is himself listening to us most attentively: "the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs-" This is clause 25. It does not say "on order of the House" but "on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs". Clause 26(1) has the same effect, except that it reads "on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, make regulations".
As you are aware, the Statutory Instruments Act was not passed by either the Bloc, the PQ, the Government of Quebec, or the former Leader of the Opposition, but by all of you together here. It is your legislation, you are the originators of it. Not you personally, Mr. Speaker, but the House. The Statutory Instruments Act is passed over, and we enter the spirit of, and follow in the wake of, the late lamented bills. By that I mean C-62 of last spring, which was never passed, and C-84 which came back to us in the guise of C-25. The minister is taking over the powers of this House.
So much for the Statutory Instruments Act. From now on, the minister may, on his own initiative, just wake up one day on the wrong side of the bed, and there we are, he can just pass regulations, any regulations. He tells the Governor in Council "pass this for me this morning". The House is not informed, no one is.
Worse still, the icing on the cake, as they say, is clause 26(2). Somebody was mixed up, somebody goofed, a regulation has been poorly applied or announced. No problem. It is not necessary to publish the draft regulation again, even if modified.
For example, it is written that large vessels are no longer entitled to ply the St. Lawrence, when what was meant was small vessels, but that is not published. The first small vessel they catch in Du Moine Channel or in my buddy's riding of Saguenay, is told he is breaking the law. He replies that he has seen nothing to that effect, and we tell him that there is nothing to see, it was not published.
We had published one; it was no good. We prepared another; it was not published. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and my colleague for Vancouver Quadra should certainly know this maxim. Now, however, he is changing it to: guess right. That is what it will be from now on for clause 26(2), especially: guess right.
Earlier on, he was criticizing me for trying to do indirectly what the law did not permit directly. Here, it is the opposite. He is doing indirectly what the law requires him to do directly. So everything is topsey turvey. You tell the member for Vancouver Quadra, since I cannot tell him myself. As we said: "A word to the wise is sufficient".
All that to say to the member for Vancouver Quadra: "Try it-" I see the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell getting in a state. He is chic. I am not sure whether he has understood the technique. The member for Vancouver Quadra could explain it to him. I am sure he will do it well. He is a famous prof.
I will ask him one last time to intercede with his leader, his officials or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There is even a clause to the effect that it is possible to fish if it is done in good faith. I saw that somewhere. I have never seen such a law.
In any case, as for the passage of regulations, I would ask the member for Vancouver Quadra, if he could exercise his authority in the matter a bit and try to line their eyes up with the holes. They need it.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
We will now move on to the question. The question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
All those in favour will please say yea.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
All those opposed will please say nay.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Nay.
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more that five members having risen:
Oceans ActGovernment Orders
9:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
A recorded division on the motion is deferred.
We would have to wait for the vote to actually take place on Motion No. 28 to know how it would apply to Motions Nos. 29 and 30, as was the case earlier this evening with another grouping.
I thank all those who spoke this evening for their co-operation. Pursuant to order passed Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 9.38 p.m.)