Debates of June 12th, 1996

Nuclear Safety And Control Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to express general support for the changes included in Bill C-23, the nuclear safety and control act.

In part they reflect the changing background against which this act was originally written. The main present day concerns involve: the health and safety of Canadians working in and around radioactive material from the initial stages of mining right through to such things as nuclear power stations; medical and educational purposes; disposal of radioactive waste, both low level and high level; environmental concerns for all, especially for people living in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities; the safe disposal of nuclear waste; and the safe transportation of such hazardous products.

I express general support for the method of putting this legislation together. This included reasonably extensive consultation with the four provinces which use nuclear power or mine uranium: Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

We understand there are concerns from the Government of Saskatchewan that Bill C-23 might hamper discussions regarding regulating the uranium mining and milling industry. There is also the possibility that Saskatchewan may wish to develop proper regulations of its own and may wish to license uranium mining and milling. Apparently the federal government's legal beagle so to speak has said that Bill C-23 does not interfere except where federal oversight is needed to maintain the federal role in nuclear matters.

Reformers approve that regulating is being done on a cost recovery basis after some consultation took place with the industry about the fee schedules, with fees being phased in over a fairly extended period of time since the start of the procedure in 1990. I believe Canadians would strongly approve that hospitals and universities should be exempt from such fees.

On the possible objections to Bill C-23, what bothers me the most is that it has taken 50 years to revamp an act which was passed in 1946. The government of the day, and whether it is Liberal or Conservative it never changes, always blames the other for taking so long to get something done, or for putting an act in place and the other one has to follow through on it. I remind the Liberals that probably for 38 years out of the past 50 years their party was the government so that excuse no longer washes.

I also understand from a departmental briefing that changes to the Canadian Labour Code are needed regarding employees in nuclear industries if we do not want to have the federal government intervening in labour matters which are more properly dealt with by the provincial governments. This is a concern. I sincerely hope somebody has ensured that the changes were made. That was mentioned in a departmental briefing yesterday afternoon. They also mentioned that an update was needed on that point. I would appreciate it if the minister or the parliamentary secretary could confirm that for me.

Another concern arises where the federal government possibly will not do all in its power to eliminate overlap and duplication with the provinces by delegating responsibility for administration and inspection. Would there be one environmental assessment needed for the federal government and the provinces? Another is provincial inspections for normal health and safety of employees. The provinces could add radioactivity which would then not require that a separate federal inspector race around the country checking on this.

I caution that every effort must be made to protect the safety of Canadians as cost effectively as possible. Nuclear disasters are a terrible risk to all of us and we have to have zero tolerance for serious accidents. We also recognize that uranium has tremendous potential to supply the energy needs of future generations, once adequate research has resolved the problems of the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

We also recognize that uranium mining and milling is a developing industry which is significant for provinces such as Saskatchewan. The regulatory process must be kept clear, timely and based on science rather than politics or fearmongering.

I also wonder about this government when, on a trade mission, it sells a nuclear reactor to China. Yet there seems to be great concern in this country, especially from the Reform Party, on human rights in that country. Where is the government coming from? Is it more in love with the almighty dollar than it is with human rights? I am concerned about this.

In conclusion, when I was young I read the story about Rip van Winkle. I would have to say that after 50 years it is Rip van Liberals. Something hit them on the head and they woke up to the fact that they had to make this outdated policy more modern. They say it may be better late than never and I guess it is better late than never.

We will support the bill. It is long overdue. I can do nothing but blame this government for the length of time it has taken.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to replace the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act. It is destined to remedy some of the problems encountered in the existing act and replace the Atomic Energy Control Board with a nuclear safety commission as described in Bill C-23.

It seems to me one area of progress is that the new commission will have the authority to order remedial actions and seek financial guarantees for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. This is a very important central theme when it comes to nuclear power. This is important because in May 1995 the auditor general estimated that nuclear waste disposal solutions will cost at least $10 billion, I repeat $10 billion, over the next 70 years. He estimated that the federal government's share of this cost would be around $850 million minimum, and that this cost could increase if the federal government had to assume responsibilities for nuclear waste producers who fail to meet the clean-up and decommissioning obligations.

This bill requires that all reactors and mines produce decommissioning plans by as early as January 1, 1997 which include cost estimates for so-called cradle to grave waste management responsibilities associated with the facility. This is a very good initiative embodied in the bill.

In a cursory look at the bill itself, the language in clause 24(5) needs to be strengthened to ensure that licences necessarily contain a condition that the applicant provide a financial guarantee in a form and to an extent acceptable to the commission itself.

Every effort must be made to ensure that the real cost of nuclear power production is absorbed by the producers and consumers. It must not be externalized, postponed or pushed into the future to be paid for at some later date by the Canadian public.

At the present time, the decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal costs at Ontario Hydro are carried as an internal debt. In other words, as far as I was able to determine, no real dollars are being set aside for future decommissioning. Perhaps it is being done on paper, but that is the extent of the provision being made right now for future generations. When needed, Ontario Hydro would then borrow the money.

I have been informed by the Minister of Natural Resources that it is Ontario Hydro's intention to change this practice in the near future and to begin to set aside real dollars in an external fund. This is an urgent matter. When the time for decommissioning comes, one is not certain that the utility will be in a position to borrow the required funds. Only through setting aside dollars in an external special fund that is known and visible to the public can the long term interest of the public be properly served.

In addition to setting aside real funds for decommissioning reactors, the cradle to grave management of nuclear waste also requires that an appropriate amount be set aside for that purpose. Here again the auditor general has warned us of the magnitude of the nuclear waste problem over the next decades. It seems only reasonable to say at this stage that the new commission must ensure the necessary funds be made available.

For example, there are some 130 tonnes of radioactive sand in Elliot Lake which must be stabilized. By contrast in the United States, there are only 200 million tonnes of radioactive tailings. By law there, the tailings must be properly stabilized. Mining companies have already spent $2 billion to accomplish this. Here in Canada the mining company in Elliot Lake is talking of posting

some $4 million in the form of a bond to cover the stabilization of the tailings. You can see the difference in approach, Mr. Speaker.

It is hoped the new commission will ensure that in both the private and the public sectors-I hope the production of nuclear electricity will be in the public sector-the full cost of nuclear power will be paid by producers and consumers from start to end, from production to the final disposition of the spent materials, from cradle to grave as it is commonly said.

Another aspect of this bill requires attention. Bill C-23, which is entitled an act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts, allows for the incorporation of provincial laws in the nuclear safety and control act and the delegation of administration and enforcement to the provinces. This legislation could lead to the devolution of regulatory powers for nuclear energy to the provinces. With provincial budget cuts of the magnitude that have been announced, for instance in Ontario, one wonders whether the delegation of administration and enforcement is desirable and in the public interest.

Premier Harris and his government have shown a real interest in deregulation in areas of environmental protection and public responsibility by government. For instance, the Ontario government's red tape commission is presently examining proposals to increase toxic effluents from mines into water bodies. Second, the omnibus Bill 26 opens up conservation areas for development. If this were not enough, omnibus Bill 26 shifts the liability for abandoned mines and tailing sites from the private to the public sector.

The risks associated with nuclear power are, as we all know, to be watched. They require direct federal regulatory approaches. They require a federal presence, a federal responsibility in order to ensure the safety of Canadians and their environment.

In a cursory review of the bill, I notice that clause 24 needs to be strengthened. I would say the same for clause 42 which deals with indemnity and liability under the Nuclear Liability Act, and for clause 46 which deals with the treatment of contaminated land.

The Nuclear Liability Act must be mentioned in this debate because it is an act that needs to be revisited. It needs to be strengthened. The liability in our statutory legislation is too low. Times, costs, inflation and other factors require that the government bring this legislation to the House and modify, increase and modernize the approach that was perhaps adequate when that legislation was passed a few decades ago but is no longer adequate now. Therefore I urge the government to bring the Nuclear Liability Act into this House with the necessary amendments.

I would like to make two points. First, the nuclear industry is most likely the most subsidized industry in Canada. It has received, since its inception, over $5 billion of direct payments. Even now, in times of austerity, we will find an item in the budget of the Department of Natural Resources for a direct grant which exceeds $100 million, maybe in the range of $142 million or $145 million. Last year it was twice as much. It is an industry that is constantly being subsidized by the public at large. It is a subsidy that must come to an end. If everybody has to tighten their belts, from those who have to go on unemployment insurance to those who receive pensions, then the subsidies to industry also have to stop.

Second, our dependence on oil and nuclear sources of energy has to be examined and gradually changed. We need to plan for the future by shifting our dependence from the non-renewables such as fossil fuels and our dependence on the renewables as represented by the rather costly and, at times, dangerous nuclear source of energy to renewable sources.

However, in order to do that research and development have to be activated. Emphasis should be shifted from the continuous support for nuclear and fossil fuels to sources that range from biomass to solar and other forms of energy that are definitely within reach if the funds are put into research and development that are required in order to enhance and accelerate the process of reaching these potential alternatives that are definitely available to humanity.

Therefore, I hope this bill represents a temporary measure. It recognizes our dependence on nuclear power. I call on the government to ensure that this dependence is not increased, that the constant subsidization of the nuclear industry is eliminated, that we ensure that the liability is adequate, and that we move to the discovery of technologies that will provide Canadians and society at large with clean and safe sources of energy.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite are keen to hear another speech on Bill C-23, the nuclear safety act.

As members know, I have a new role within the party and I do not have a lot to do with this bill, but I did spend several months as the critic in the natural resource area and did quite a bit of work in this area. Therefore, I would just like to make a few comments before the bill passes.

As has been mentioned already by our critic, Reform members will be supporting this bill, but there are a few things we would like to see changed. However, this is a good bill and long overdue.

The comments made by the hon. member for Davenport were, by and large, very accurate and very well taken. His concern with the

decommissioning costs, with the true costs of the creation of electrical power from nuclear energy being reflected in the cost to the consumer, is an accurate statement and something that has not been done. It has created an enormous liability for the federal government and provincial governments, but specifically for the federal government as it is on the hook for billions of dollars. That is an unfortunate and should have been addressed years ago. This bill starts the process of correcting that but it has been a long time coming.

We can do a few things to strengthen the bill. It has been mentioned by several people that the bill has been a long time coming. The minister promised it a year ago, again last fall and it finally came in this spring. We are grateful for it after a 50-year wait. It increases some of the fines and punishments that can be dished out. The existing punishments are ridiculously low. A maximum of $10,000 can be charged under the old act, which is a laughable amount.

The bill deals with the overlap and duplication of arrangements between provinces and the federal government. However, Reformers have several concerns about the bill.

First and most important is the treatment of radioactive waste. I mentioned that the bill has been a long time coming. While we have been waiting, in the last year or two there have been developments which are placing the federal government and the taxpayers on the hook for big bucks. It is going to end up costing a lot of money.

This has been delayed not only by this government but by previous Liberal governments that had introduced bills and then let them die on the Order Paper. It was introduced by the Conservatives who also let it die. Now finally, hopefully, we can get through the bill quickly and get royal assent.

In 1994 the Atomic Energy Control Board Secretary General J.G. McManus said about the old Atomic Energy Control Act:

The deficiencies of the Atomic Energy Control Act have been noted by the courts, the media, special interest groups and parliamentary committees. They include the lack of formal powers for AECB inspectors, an inadequate ceiling on the $10,000 on fines, no stated provision for public hearings, lack of explicit power to recover the cost of regulation from the users, an inability to hold polluters financially accountable for their actions or for the AECB to initiate remedial action and recover the costs-the AECB is handicapped by its statutory underpinnings which reflect the needs of another age.

This is really a synopsis of the speech by the hon. member for Davenport and almost a synopsis of mine. However, I should go through it in just a little more detail for the hon. member opposite.

There are no nuclear reactors in British Columbia. It is not a big issue and I doubt that it ever will be because I do not think that there is a chance to get public approval for a nuclear energy plant in British Columbia. I cannot foresee that day. However, people in B.C. are very environmentally concerned and this is very high on their list of concerns. As taxpayers they are also concerned about the amount of money that may be required to fix this long lasting nuclear problem.

Nuclear waste is a big problem. To dispose of low level waste in Ontario is going to cost at least $300 million. That is just an estimate. If anything goes wrong in the transportation or the disposal it could be much higher. That is just $300 million to start.

I have been to the high level waste test sites where they are trying to find ways to dispose of the high level wastes in Pinawa. To bury this high level waste will cost from $13 billion to $16 billion and that is just an estimate. If track records mean anything it is likely to be much higher. The problem for everybody across Canada is that the tab will have to be picked up by the Canadian taxpayer.

I think members on the other side are trying to make the nuclear sign with their hands. So I will go on for a bit longer about this particular cause.

Over the last 20 years if there had been a fund established to look after the decommissioning costs of the nuclear sites and the wastes generated, then this would almost be a housekeeping bill. No one would much care about the details because at least the dollars would have been looked after. However, there was nothing set up 20 years ago and billions of dollars are going to have to be paid by a generation that did not benefit from that electrical energy.

This is a principle which I would hope the Liberal government would pay attention to on more issues. The government is now concerned that the generation which will benefit from this electrical power should be the one that pays for it. If we translated that into other government legislation, we would not have a national debt which is pushing $600 billion.

If the government was concerned about ensuring that the generation which is benefiting from programs or benefiting from government largesse was the one paying the bills, who could argue with that? However, governments have saddled future generations with excessively high tax rates and problems such as this one which will cost billions of dollars to correct.

When I talk to high school students about this intergenerational transfer of wealth and the fact that people in the federal government have been satisfied to saddle them with these bills, they are upset. We cannot blame them. They will be paying the taxes, the pensions, UI premiums and everything else at excessively high

rates. When I mention to them that there will be another $13 billion or $15 billion for a nuclear clean-up and that their environmentally conscious generation will have to pay the bills which their fathers and grandfathers ran up, they are not impressed. It is not right.

The principle should be that if we create an environmental mess, we should clean it up. If the government has a problem, it should pay for it now. It should not ask our children and our children's children to clean up the mess which is being created now. Procrastination has created the problems. It is unfair both financially and environmentally to put off what should have been done a long time ago.

With respect to the funding of the clean-up, there is no fund in place. It is a real problem. There are some bookkeeping entries and yes there is an obligation. However, as the hon. member for Davenport has pointed out, there is no fund. If it is going to cost $10 billion or $20 billion to clean up this mess and we ask where the money will come from, the government will say that it will come out of general revenue when the time comes. That may be 10 or 20 years from now. If that is not another intergenerational transfer of wealth I do not know what is.

The government is going to ask somebody to pay for it down the road. When we think of the clean up of the tailings from mines, the clean up of some sites such as the Bruce power plant and so on, we should start setting aside a significant amount of dollars now so that the current consumers and producers will fund those clean-ups. Reformers believe that the policy of pay as you go certainly applies to environmental clean-ups and definitely to the nuclear industry.

In April I received a letter from the Saskatchewan minister of energy and mines, the hon. Eldon Lautermilch. It was in response to a letter I had written to him concerning this legislation. He said that there was concern about overlap and duplication in the regulation of the uranium mining and milling operations and that therefore they were disappointed with the limited provisions within the act to delegate administration to the provinces.

That lack of ability to delegate responsibility is something we will address in committee with an amendment to try to at least give the power to delegate. In other words, we will try to reduce the amount of duplication between the federal and provincial governments and allow the federal government to delegate to the provinces on that issue. Saskatchewan would be the major benefactor of that.

We have suggested that the act could be amended to allow for a clearer division of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments in the whole area of the clean up of the tailings from uranium mines that have now been decommissioned. There are problems with leaching and with who is responsible for the clean up. On the one hand it is a provincial resource and on the other hand it has been regulated by the federal government. We have to solve the financial mess and the environmental mess that goes with that.

We have general concerns about the independence of the board from politicians. We do not want a board that is made up of people who have been appointed because they have a paid up Liberal card. We want to make sure that people who are appointed to this board, a superboard with superpowers, will be qualified and will be the right people.

We have suggested that board members not be appointed by a House of Commons standing committee but could be approved or vetoed by the committee. In other words, let us have people who have general qualifications. They could come before a committee and say what they were going to do and why they should have the job regardless of their political background and we could be satisfied with their qualifications. That would be an improvement as well.

We have a small problem with the make up of the board. In 1985 the Nielsen commission said the board was too small and the size of the board has been increased somewhat. That was a good idea but it has still been left that just two members have to be full time members. We think two full time members on this board is not going to be enough. This board is going to have a lot of powers and a lot of responsibilities. With the responsibilities the board has been given under this act, more members will be need.

This new act is going to add legitimacy to this commission. The confidence Canadians have in the nuclear industry will increase if they see that the commission has powers and follows through on some of the problems that the member for Davenport, the auditor general, the Nielsen report and other reports have consistently identified for all to see.

To give Ontario credit, hearings on the nuclear industry have been held from time to time and in times past all these hearings have been public hearings. But the act does not specify that any hearings relating to the nuclear industry must be public hearings. It should be changed so that hearings must be held. Canadians can then be assured that the process is very open and that nothing is hidden from them and nothing is being done behind closed doors.

I know the government, given its track record for example on constitutional issues, would never want to do something behind closed doors I am sure. Well maybe I am not entirely convinced but certainly that is an amendment we will be proposing because we want things out in the open.

In conclusion, we welcome this act. As it goes to committee we are going to find widespread agreement on the act.

I will put in a little plug for my private member's bill which also deals with the nuclear industry and the need for liability insurance in order to protect the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian public. There is some room for that which is not addressed in this act. There is a necessity to update the nuclear industry regulation into the 21st century so that Canadians can have confidence that the regulation and control of the industry will make it as safe as possible.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Regulations Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-25, an act respecting regulations and other documents, including the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents, and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill C-25, the new regulations act, be approved in principle.

Let me say how pleased we are to have had the benefit of prestudy by a subcommittee of the government operations committee in the last session. Even though the subcommittee's hearings were interrupted by the prorogation, the input we received has allowed us to make some slight technical modifications to the bill that result in an overall improvement without altering the substance of the bill. We are very much appreciative of the assistance provided by the government operations subcommittee and the members of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations who sat on the subcommittee.

Regulatory reform continues to be an area of broad interest to Canadians. There are many avenues which the government is pursuing in a way to improve the way it regulates. The new regulations act offers important improvements to the Canadian system of regulation established almost a quarter of a century ago by the Statutory Instruments Act. This act will streamline the regulatory process and reduce delays in the current process by which regulations are made at the federal level in Canada. This will allow regulations to be changed more readily to respond to new circumstances and needs.

Although these reforms were announced as part of this government's broader efforts toward building a more innovative economy and improving jobs and growth, the problems created by the current regulatory process have been identified many times during the past few years. Calls for changes have been most recently heard in the course of the public consultations that took place during the government wide regulatory review in 1992 and 1993. As well, the reforms aim to modernize and reform the legal framework for regulation making at the federal level.

The Statutory Instruments Act was designed for an earlier era of regulation. It is complex, cumbersome, slow and overburdened and this imposes a real cost to all Canadians. Outdated and inappropriate regulatory schemes can impact negatively on respect for law, competitiveness and economic growth as well as upon the working relations of the regulated private sector and government regulators.

Outdated regulatory schemes that are not well tailored to changing circumstances increase the government costs of obtaining compliance. Delays in modernizing and improving regulatory schemes reduce the ability of government to respond to new developments in the fields of health, safety, the environment, international trade and federal-provincial relations.

The negative impact of a slow and cumbersome regulatory process is also experienced by Canadian businesses because of outdated and inappropriate regulations that tend to reduce competitiveness and economic growth, generally speaking.

The limitations and the delays that are created by the existing regulation making system result in hidden, but very real, costs to all Canadians in the form of increased expenditure of revenues spent in enforcing outdated and inappropriate regulations and reduced competitiveness in the global marketplace.

No one could seriously dispute that the current regulatory process must be reformed in order to keep pace with the current realities of regulation in the 1990s and into the 21st century. Bill C-25 will improve the regulatory process for the benefit of all Canadians. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that reform of the Statutory Instruments Act calls for a careful balancing of different interests.

In the new act, the objectives of streamlining, simplifying and expediting the regulation making process are achieved without compromising equally important goals of ensuring adequate opportunity for notice, public comment and effective oversight by Parliament of the creation of binding, subordinate legislation.

It is important, therefore, to emphasize that the reforms being proposed in the regulations act are largely technical improvements that would not radically alter the existing process. Rather, they will clarify existing legal uncertainties that give rise to debate and delay, simplify steps where appropriate and modernize the process.

I would like to emphasize that the new regulations act will preserve and strengthen the fundamental principles and objectives of the Statutory Instruments Act, which provides legal safeguards necessary in making binding laws such as regulations.

These objectives include ensuring the legality, transparency and accessibility of regulations and providing a meaningful opportunity for parliamentary oversight of the executive in the exercise of this law making power.

The new act will improve the capacity of government to respond quickly and effectively to public concerns as well as to changing rapidly for the circumstances of the global economy. It will also reduce the overall volume of regulations that go through the system and provide an expedited process, where appropriate, and allow for a more effective use of incorporation by reference. It will create a framework for achieving important administrative improvements in the way government departments handle regulation making as well.

By facilitating amendment or replacing an outdated regulatory scheme, regulating departments will be better placed to implement new ideas about how to regulate more effectively, and at a lower cost, to all Canadians.

The reforms found in Bill C-25 will create a new regulations act that will be better tailored to the contemporary regulatory climate.

I would like to briefly outline some of the key elements of reform that are found in this bill. They are a simpler, more principled definition of regulation and other plain language improvements; an appropriate view of different classes of documents, including an expedited process for documents that do not require legal review; a revised exemption power that will now be subject to an express public interest consideration; a codification and clarification of the law by expressly authorizing the incorporation by reference of international and other standards into regulations, subject to an express accessibility requirement; a modernized process that allows for the creation of an electronic registry of regulations; and finally, maintenance for government accountability for regulations through parliamentary scrutiny.

The new regulations act will relieve the system of documents that do not need to be subject to the regulatory process or at least to the whole process, either because they are not substantive or truly regulatory in the sense of establishing generally binding rules of conduct, or because their legality and accessibility are assured in some other way. This will allow the attention as well as the resources of the regulatory process and of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations to be focused on the important legal instruments that warrant that attention.

With respect to the provisions on incorporation by reference, it is important to understand that they do not create a new regulatory technique. They merely clarify and codify a legal technique that is currently being widely used across Canada, and whose legitimacy has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. This technique is widely employed in Europe and has been advocated by the Standards Council of Canada and many international bodies, including the International Standards Organization in Geneva.

Incorporation of standards into regulations, particularly as they are amended from time to time, is an important way for government to promote the goals of international and intergovernmental harmonization of regulatory standards. Reliance on the expertise and timeliness of international and interprovincial standards writing organizations is of significant value in promoting Canadian competitiveness, particularly in contexts of rapid technological change. The usefulness of this technique in promoting Canadian competitiveness was recognized in the 1993 report of the finance subcommittee on regulations and competitiveness.

I am confident that ministers and cabinet can be relied on to ensure that incorporation by reference of standards that exist as of a certain date or as amended from time to time will be employed in appropriate circumstances and that the bodies creating the standards are expert and reliable such that Canadians will be satisfied with the standards that are being adopted.

While these provisions on incorporation by reference simply reflect the current law and practice, I would like to draw members' attention to the fact that we are also proposing a significant improvement over the current practice in that the new regulations act would create an expressed statutory duty on regulating departments to ensure that incorporated materials are accessible.

I also want to emphasize that the improvements offered by Bill C-25 will not be at the cost of the equally important objectives of the regulatory process, including necessary parliamentary review of regulations. The new act will not only preserve but strengthen the role currently played by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations by providing that all regulations that meet the new simplified but principled definition of regulations will stand permanently referred to that committee, together will all other documents that are required to be registered. The standing joint committee will be free at any time to call for review and

comment on regulations that incorporate materials, and in so doing will have access as well to the incorporated material. The structure of the current Statutory Instruments Act limits the instruments that are referred to the standing joint committee in a way that the proposed act will not do.

Clear cost savings and environmental benefits will result from the proposed electronic registry with a reduced reliance on paper. The registry will also ultimately provide regulated communities, interest groups and the public generally with quicker and more direct means of consultation and commentary on proposed regulatory changes.

We are well aware that not all Canadians are computer literate yet and that access to laws published in paper form will continue to be the method of choice for many Canadians. Therefore, I would like to emphasize that the proposed electronic system is intended to supplement and not replace the existing system of paper, publication and access. Regulations will continue to be widely available in paper format. They will be published in the Canada Gazette which is accessible through local libraries and by subscription. Under the act paper copies can also be requested from the Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council or from the departments responsible for the regulations.

The regulatory process provided for in the Statutory Instruments Act is too complex and burdensome to be able to keep pace with the changing regulatory needs. The overall effect of the reforms contained in Bill C-25 will be less stress on the existing system by reducing the number and volume of regulations subject to the general regulatory process while preserving the important value embodied in the original scheme.

The result will be a system that is more responsive and efficient, which will be in a better position to give the federal government a renewal that modernizes the existing regulatory process and put in place regulatory schemes that better address the need and the interests of Canadians, both the general public and the regulated communities.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have to speak to Bill C-25, entitled Regulations Act. This bill had been introduced in the House last fall under the number C-84. Before that, there was the famous Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act. I think the hon. member for Fundy-Royal remembers it. Bill C-62 died on the Order Paper and, as he was saying, Bill C-84 was introduced last fall.

I believe the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should remember the saying that the bird that sings best does not always sing the longest. He would certainly have heaped less praise on Bill C-84. I would just like to remind him that I was a member of the sub-committee he mentioned. That sub-committee convened once to set up and, a second time, for about half an hour, in the building facing us, to meet the officials who came to explain the bill to us. Unfortunately, that meeting was interrupted by the bell calling us in. We came to vote and, after that, we never heard about the sub-committee on Bill C-84.

We had made some recommendations to the justice department, particularly to the solicitor general of Canada. We had told him it would be worthwhile to examine that bill in committee, before second reading, because of its effects on the daily lives of businesses, of citizens, of all Canadians. That committee should have been made up of members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

As you know a committee was created some 20 years ago, pursuant to Standing Order 90, I believe, namely the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which I co-chair with Senator Lewis. The main purpose of this committee is to scrutinize all regulations under federal legislation. The work load of the committee is staggering. Every year, we must study between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments. We report to the House and make recommendations to the department concerned. We have a team of lawyers working for the committee.

This committee of experts would have been in the best position to give advice to the House. We know what happened last fall. The House adjourned for the Christmas recess. In February, the session was prorogued to the end of February. All the bills which had died on the Order Paper reappeared on the legislative agenda under a different number and Bill C-84 became C-25. In spite of these cosmetic changes, the content of the bill is still the same.

When I told my colleague opposite that sometimes the bird that sings best does not sing the longest I meant that, if I were him, I would not have dared to praise this bill and present it to the House as if it were the best thing since sliced bread. On the contrary, I believe the member should think twice about it, and I am going to give him arguments which hopefully will make him change his mind.

Mr. Speaker, your silence tells me you support my approach. Silence gives consent, obviously. Through you, I will make my arguments known to the member for Fundy-Royal. Regulation is defined as a series of rules established and enforced by the state to limit or clarify the nature of a society's economic and social

activity. Regulation is made following the adoption of a law. That is our rule, the one we know now, the one that has always prevailed in this Parliament.

In practice, most regulations are drafted and adopted by Cabinet. There are an average of 800 new regulations each year. They deal with all kinds of things, some very significant, others less significant, from the diameter of dimes to the fission of the atom. Regulations are always important and must be consistent with the spirit and letter of the enabling act. So, in practice, regulations are proposed by Cabinet and adopted by the governor-in-council.

Regulation has become the most common form of public intervention. It would be unthinkable to monopolize the House and its 295 members every time a regulatory change is needed. If the House was called upon to make these changes, it would soon be completely paralysed. The regulatory process is something useful that we all want.

It is governed by the Statutory Instruments Act. The revision process was initiated in January 1993 when the finance committee called for a comprehensive review of the regulatory process. Bill C-25 is the final result of this reform undertaken more than three years ago.

As I said earlier, it is almost identical to its predecessor, Bill C-84, which was introduced during the first session of this 35th Parliament. In December 1993, the subcommittee on regulations and competitiveness of the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons released its report entitled Regulations and Competitiveness , in which it included the results of its analysis of the impact of regulations on competitiveness.

The then Conservative government gave the report a rather good reception. The Bloc Quebecois does not deny the fact that the current process can sometimes, and I would go as far as saying quite often, lead to delays and thus additional costs. So, it was in everyone's best interest to try to review the regulatory process so that our corporations which rely on it could benefit from it, by reducing their production costs or simply their operation costs.

The objectives of the parliamentarians were to develop a regulatory system that could produce a high quality product while eliminating all the garbage by improving the drafting, implementation and evaluation of regulations.

Since several recommendations found in the subcommittee report support a more comprehensive framework for the regulatory process and for the role played by the Treasury Board president and secretariat in that process, the government should have included in Bill C-25 additional obligations at some other stages of the regulatory process.

For instance, the government could have racked its brains a bit more-although that is not its forte-and tried to elaborate some more on the decision to regulate. It could have asked parliamentarians or the appropriate authority to hold hearings and consultations, to develop the regulations and do a cost-benefit analysis of the regulations.

It could also have defined the powers of the Treasury Board president and secretariat. Thus the government would have respected the will of the elected members of the last Parliament and put into place a more restrictive legislative framework for the civil servants. Remember this: the legislative framework is the watchdog of the subdelegation of powers as we see it.

If we let the civil servants do as they want, without any legal restriction whatsoever, we may after a while find ourselves with legal monsters, a court overload never ever seen before and administrative costs a hundred times higher than those we wanted to avoid in the first place with this defective regulation.

What I understand also is that, since the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, the federal government keeps its money and sees to it that others foot the bill. It legislates on principles but never on anything more definite. It says: "The courts will decide." But the provinces are the ones who pay the courts. They are the ones who pay the judges. That costs a bundle.

What is saved with one hand is spent with the other. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal did not dwell on that because he is not known for helping taxpayers or the provinces save money.

As it is, Bill C-25 does not provide any framework for the regulatory powers of the Treasury Board. Several stages of the regulatory process, that is, the decision making, the preparation of the regulation, the consultation of all those concerned and the cost-benefit analysis, remain the responsibility of the civil servants pursuant to Bill C-25.

The President of the Treasury Board is under no legal obligation to develop such directives and the regulatory agencies are under no legal obligation to respect them. This is swell.

I will take Bill C-25 as is but I will not examine it in detail.

I will not do a clause-by-clause review. However, I must admit there are some good things. First off I said we must try to reduce costs associated with the regulation process as well as the repercussions it can have on businesses.

Section 2 of the old Statutory Instruments Act gave an ambiguous definition of statutory instruments or regulations. It was confusing. Sooner or later, lawyers from the department or the

private sector take the matter before the courts. Then people complain about the cost.

Therefore we have grouped under the word "regulation" general implementation texts established under a federal law and creating unilaterally binding rules of conduct. This is fine, but we must still take into consideration the way the government sees privatization.

It happens on a regular basis. Airports are privatized. We have autonomous Crown corporations like Post Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada, Telesat Canada and numerous other agencies which are creations of the federal government but still have powers of their own. Their enabling act empowers them to adopt standards and to legislate.

These people, companies, interests, are not touched by Bill C-25. This was a concern for the Standing Committee on scrutiny of regulations, of which I am a joint-chairman. We received complaints from people affected by the regulations. We could easily see there was something wrong. The legislator's intent had not been respected.

Since their regulation did not stem from a statute of Parliament but rather from an independent agency, we could not check it or make recommendations to the House. Bill C-25 does not change that; the situation will be the same and could even get worse. We talked, for example, about the corporation created from scratch by the federal government to provide air navigation services. That corporation, like others, will be exempt from control under Bill C-25.

Already Bill C-25 has the pernicious, and I almost said perverse and secret effect of excluding all parliamentarians from the decision making process. This is again a new approach, a Liberal type of neo-federalism whereby management is all done behind closed doors. They make regulations which, more often than not, give preference to major contributors to their slush fund.

They can adopt standards that apply only to them, that are profitable only for them. They can do it secretly, without publishing the information so the adversaries will not know about it, so that the Tories will not know that Mr. Bronfman gave to both the Liberals and the Tories. Nothing is published, all is kept secret so everything looks fine.

I can see where they are going. They come here and sit down and say that the past can vouch for the future. It is easy to say that with a $600 billion debt. It was not the Bloc Quebecois that invented all those standards. My great-grandchildren will still be paying for that debt.

They can very well brag and say that if God had not created them, the world would be coming to an end, but I disagree. It might be the beginning of a better world, since the debt might not be so huge.

I listen to the member for Mount Royal- You know, I think I preferred the great Groulx to Pettigrew.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

So you prefer that type of approach?

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

I was referring to the priest.

The regulatory process can be very onerous at times, but democracy has a price. All of us would like everything to be democratic, but we would rather not pay for that. Unfortunately, human beings will be human beings, Mr. Speaker. I know from your silence that you agree. I am sure my remarks are accurate, and I can assure you I have the best intentions. Even the Prime Minister would not stand up to contradict me. And the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel will not do so either, because they know I am right. These people know that governing a country is important, and that the implications are enormous. Sometimes, when we make miserly economies, we run the risk of stalling the economy and doing more harm than good.

I let the hon. member across throw me off track, but I will now go on. I was commenting on a few clauses in the bill. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has praised incorporation by reference.

It is not that simple. Clause 19 or 20 of the bill, I believe, deals with incorporation by reference. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel will no doubt agree that this procedure can be interesting when you need to incorporate things like automobile standards. Instead of putting them in regulations, it is more simple to say that we accept the standards set in such and such a book of specifications by General Motors on such and such a date. That is fine, but incorporation by reference can also have unwanted consequences.

You will recall an incorporation by reference involving the number 6803, which states that calculating pension income for someone who has worked in the U.S. for some years and might be entitled to a pension requires reference to American Government Order no. 6803 to determine the amount of pension. Order 6803, however, may be cost of living indexed, and we who have referred to it, to an authority outside of Canada, attempt to comply because we are not the ones to decide, a foreign government is.

It might have been wise to state, and I am in agreement with the government on this, that when there is incorporation by reference, this may include a foreign government such as the U.S. Government. This is not done, however, and so we find ourselves before the courts, who will tell us that it is unacceptable for a regulation passed in the United States to be applied by reference to Canadians.

There will also be another problem. Some will say that the regulation was adopted in English only in the United States. Does that not contravene section 133 of Canada's Constitution? This is going to be another problem. The intent was to lower the standards,

and then we will be forced to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to 27 overnight.

So you see, in an effort to make savings, we are going to find ourselves with additional expenditures. Thus, although we start out with good intentions, when laws are badly written, we end up with legal monsters of a sort. It does not look like anything. We cannot make head or tail of it. We do not know what it is. After all, it probably does not amount to much. This could, however, reward and benefit friends of the party, who, thanks to vague and ambiguous documents, could end up getting some kind of norm applying only to them.

One of my constituents, for whom I have the greatest respect, told me he had heard that the post office in Chambly was for sale. It could have been. When you do not need a post office any longer, you sell it. He was interested in bidding for it. So, I called Canada Post to ask if the post office was for sale. I was told that, no, they had not decided to sell it. So I ask for an assurance that if ever it is put up for sale there will be a public call for tenders. They replied: "Oh, no, Mr. Lebel, we cannot give you that assurance". If they wanted to, the post office could even be given away. They are not under any obligation to follow the regulations of the House of Commons, to call for tenders, etc. If they want, they can give it away even if people are willing to pay a good price for that post office.

The only rule Canada Post Corporation has to abide by is that it must come before the House of Commons every year to say it is making profits. As long as there are profits, nobody complains. That is what I was told and I know these people are acting in good faith. They will not give the post office away. However, I know that legally they could do so because they do not come under the control of the House of Commons.

All we are doing here is giving them some appropriations when they are in the red. However, we do not ask them anything when they are making money. In this way, it is always the taxpayer who pays.

What I just said pertains to incorporation by reference. There is another aspect to this bill. It also deals with the publication of bills and regulations. The rules are changed by saying: "The Governor in Council may, by regulation, exempt from the application of the regulatory process a regulation or class of regulations that was prescribed under- the- Act as exempt from examination, registration or publication under that Act immediately before its repeal". There was none. There were not many, but there were still a few.

It says a regulation may be published, but also that it may not be published. No one can be convicted on the basis of the publication of that regulation, if means had not been taken to make it known appropriately. But this provision is rather vague. It says that people should know about a regulation even though it was not published. They should have realized that; they are smarter than that. There is no strict rule. That is the bill's greatest flaw.

I said at the beginning of my speech that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should not have been so full of praise; I wonder if he did read the bill.

The Prime Minister is still sitting; he is not rising to his feet because he knows I am right. He will not rise. The leader of the opposition agrees with me on this. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel will not rise either for the same reason. As for the Prime Minister, he is not rising because he agrees with me and will probably send you back to the drawing board since, as you know, this kind of wording makes it impossible to save money.

Mention is made of defence mechanisms. "No person may be convicted of an offence or subjected to a penalty for a contravention of a regulation". The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is responsible for international affairs, should listen. He should pay attention to clause 11. The Prime Minister may even step in at this time. Listen to this: "No person may be convicted of an offence or subjected to a penalty for a contravention of a regulation that was not published in accordance with section 10 on or before the date of the alleged contravention".

We are reasonable people. We do not want to convict someone who committed an offence unwittingly, someone who did not comply with unpublished regulations, regulations hidden in the minister's office. Fortunately not in the office of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.

However, it says here that this person can be convicted of an offence if it is proved that, on or before the date of the alleged contravention, the person had actual notice of the substance of the regulation or reasonable steps had been taken to bring its substance to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it.

Again, what constitutes reasonable steps? Whatever seems reasonable to us invariably seems unreasonable to them. I guess the opposite is also true: What is reasonable to them can seem unreasonable to us. How can an agreement be reached then, if not through a tribunal, which will have the unenviable task of determining what is reasonable and what is not? I say to the Minister for International Cooperation that this is what I call poorly designed legislation. And I know that his department would not go for this kind of an enactment. He could not show up in Europe with something like this; they would send him packing, and I know he can do better than that.

I must tell the minister that we, the humble people living in Canada, do not find it easy to submit to such legislative imperatives. It is not easy, especially when we are told that, from now on, the regulations will be hidden and will be administered in such a

way that the taxpayer will not even know what is happening. It is their friends who will benefit. It reminds me of what family trusts did with $2 billion and was discovered two or three years after the fact.

In any case, I can tell you that my father did not benefit from these $2 billion. Look elsewhere, but not in our house.

There is something wrong in all this, and yet it is still going on. And this is nothing, just think of Bill C-62. I wonder if we are not having the same problem with Bill C-64, or Bill C-25 as it is now called, as we did with Bill C-62 regarding the standards of practice, since what is not prohibited in a statutory instrument is permitted.

So, there was a general outcry. The media were quick to react, saying that this was not possible, that it was impossible to pass a measure such as Bill C-62. The minister backed off. He could no longer go ahead. He was knocked out, if I can put it that way.

I wonder if, with Bill C-84, we are now once again facing the harmful effects of Bill C-62, but in an even more insidious way. This would really be dangerous. We would be missing an opportunity to reduce costs and all that, setting absolutely unbelievable precedents and leaving the door wide open to astronomical legal costs to correct these situations through the courts.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. We could not vote in favour of it, despite the fact that initially I detected some rather interesting ideas in it, but there are too few good ones as opposed to bad ones.

My mother, who is not as young as she used to be, was very well brought up. She did not want us to use certain words. One day, I got a nail through a foot and the wound looked real bad; my mother, not wanting to call a spade a spade, said that the wound was full of rust and bad stuff. Well, this is it: your bill is full of rust and bad stuff. You should amend it and put forward something palatable, reasonable and transparent. I am sure that this time the Prime Minister, even at this late hour, will jump up and applaud his ministers' initiative.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Has the hon. member concluded his remarks? Concluded.

The hon. minister wants the floor on a point of order.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the hon. member has finished his remarks. The minister wishes to raise a point of order, and he now has the floor first.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, being a new member of Parliament, I would like some advice. The hon. member opposite has repeatedly mentioned a member who is not here, suggesting that he should jump to his feet because of the outlandish statements he made during his speech. I wonder if this behaviour is parliamentary.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleague that the last speaker never mentioned the presence or absence of another member. If the hon. member is present, then he will no doubt jump to his feet, but if he is absent, the expression was no doubt used in a figurative sense. But since nobody mentioned the presence or absence of that other member, I think this is not a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is interesting but it is quite obvious that the hon. member did not say that the member in question is not here. The hon. member for Joliette is quite right.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, judging by that last little go round you can tell this is a long, hot summer night. We are so fortunate to be here in the House discussing Bill C-25, which could only come from the minds of Liberals. The bill is a very complex piece of legislation. It is difficult to read, it is difficult to interpret and it is difficult to discuss. It is typical Liberal legislation.

As a matter of fact the bill could almost be called frightening from the perspective of the average Canadian. Understanding the intent of the bill, which is suspect in itself, and based on reading the text, it is a challenge.

We Reformers are up to challenges from the Liberals when they bring in complex legislation, thinking that perhaps the average Canadian whom we represent is not going to understand it. We are the watchdogs. We are leading the charge for average Canadians. We attempt to clarify complex bills with which the Liberal government tries to fool the people.

Despite the complexity of the bill, it is clear that the government is following a trend which has already been set in other parliamentary democracies, like Australia. It is hard to believe but the trend is toward simplification and streamlining of the regulatory process. That is also hard to believe coming from the Liberal Party. It is to make the regulatory process more compatible with the present day needs of commerce, government and the public.

Goodness knows, if there is one thing the public, commerce and government need is more simplified regulations. Any chamber of commerce, any business organization will tell you it costs Canadian consumers and businesses billions and billions of dollars a year because ineffective and unnecessary regulations are still on the books that some government in the past has put in place.

What this country really needs, and what this government should do, instead of trying to put in complex legislation, is do a cost test on every regulation we have and find out whether it is really worthwhile or whether it is just sitting there in a redundant state. There is no doubt that streamlining and simplification, in itself, are both desirable and necessary. However, we found a flaw in this bill and it is a deadly flaw. There is no provision for disallowance. In other words, the regulatory committee, the watchdog of the regulations, cannot disallow a regulation that is unlawful or ultra vires.

My colleague, the member for North Vancouver, sits on the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. It is a committee made up of members from the House and from the Senate. The task of the committee is to examine regulations that have been made by the government and its departments in order to determine whether they are legal and consistent with the intent of the legislation under which they are made.

The vast majority of the regulations that pass through the committee are entirely in order. They may not be good regulations but from a legal point they are entirely in order. They generally require no comment.

A small percentage have to be followed up with the department involved. Quite often the problem is simply a matter of correcting minor differences in the meaning between the English and French versions of the regulations or clarifying the meaning if a misinterpretation is a possibility.

As I said, under this bill the committee does not have the power to disallow a regulation which is ultra vires or unlawful. This power is rarely used, but nevertheless is a very important power for the committee to retain. I think most Liberals would agree with me on this. The regulation watchdog must have the ability to enforce its decisions or those decisions could be rendered meaningless.

Bill C-25 makes the provision for regulations to be referred to the committee, but contains no provisions for disallowance. This means that even if the committee found that a regulation was illegal, it simply could not disallow the regulation.

It is the failure to include a disallowance procedure that makes Bill C-25 significantly different from the streamlining legislation passed in Australia. That government had the foresight to put in a disallowance clause so that the committee could do some meaningful work and make some meaningful decisions.

My colleague from North Vancouver, in his wisdom and in his common sense, introduced a private member's bill that would add a disallowance procedure to Bill C-25.

Everyone in this place knows that the chances of a private member's bill, no matter how good it is, no matter how much

common sense it contains, no matter how it would help democracy in this place, no matter how much it would make the lives of Canadians better, no matter how much it would make the lives of Canadian business people better, has very little chance of getting through this House.

The reason sits right across the way. This Liberal government allows very few private member's bills to proceed. I can talk personally about that. I knew halfway through this speech I would get to this private member's bill problem.

My Bill C-201, for example, deals with the sentencing of drunk drivers who kill. Liberals know it is a bill that the Canadian people want. They know it is a bill that is long overdue. They know it is a bill that is going to create a deterrent to people who drink and drive, and as a result, kill.

A Liberal legal mind is telling me that because of some legal complication my bill cannot be put through. Despite these legal minds in the Liberal Party or maybe because of these legal minds in the Liberal Party, they are unable to understand what the average Canadian wants.

We have presented thousands and thousands of names on petitions demanding that Bill C-201 go through, at least to committee. This Liberal government, through the whip, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, has not allowed any Liberal member who wanted to speak in favour of this bill to speak. That is shameful, absolutely shameful.

My colleague from North Vancouver introduced a private member's bill that would add a disallowance procedure to Bill C-25. Everyone in this place, because of the hard headedness of this Liberal government-I take that back, soft headedness-

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Empty headedness.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be more kind than my friend from the NDP, although he is correct.

No matter how much merit it has, the Liberal government will not let that private member's bill go through. As a result of its decisions Bill C-278, the private member's bill to have a disallowance procedure in this legislation, was defeated by that party.

The real responsibility for the failure to provide a disallowance procedure lies fairly and squarely with the Minister of Justice. This is not the only mistake that has made since he came to this House.

The Minister of Justice, despite several requests by our party, still has not explained why he refuses to incorporate that disallowance procedure. He has simply not allowed that procedure to go through, and has given no rationale or explanation.

The Liberal government and the Minister of Justice missed a tremendous opportunity when they left out the disallowance clause in this bill. As Reformers, the watchdogs of the Canadian people, the watchdogs of Canadian business, the watchdogs of all that is right and just in this country, we say shame on the Liberal government. We cannot support a bill that has a fatal flaw in it. This bill has a fatal flaw in it and we will not support it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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