Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to see you back in the chair. I was giving speeches on Thursday and there you were. You had to listen to two. You will probably have to listen to two today. I can see you are thrilled with that prospect.
We are debating Group No. 4, Motion No. 8 on Bill C-3, the DNA bill. This motion amends clause 12 of the bill. As the bill now reads, under clause 12 the governor in council can make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the bill but there is no statutory requirement for the regulations to be laid before parliament or the appropriate committee for review. We see this as a major problem. Parliamentarians and eventually the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations should be able to properly review, comment on and correct problems in the regulations.
The Bloc member wished all parliamentarians would support this motion because it would give us more say in the running of things. He will be hoping for that result but I suspect the Chrétien lookalikes will end up all standing in their places and doing what they have to do. While I will argue in favour of this motion I do not think for a moment that we are going to see support for it. None of the members opposite have stood in support. There is a very large attendance of them today. They are drastically interested in the bill. I see some laughter from the gallery and I think we all know why they are laughing when I talk about the large number of Liberals here today to listen to the content of the speeches.
We have had problems with regulations. When they do not go before a committee there is a danger there will be some sort of flaw in them. I am a member of the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and I have been on that committee since I was first elected in 1993. I suspect most members would wonder what it is all really about and what that committee does. It is probably one of the most useful committees on the Hill. It is totally non-partisan in nature. We look at purely the legality and the appropriateness of the regulations that come before us.
Unfortunately it usually takes a few years before the regulations work their way through the system and come to our attention. On the odd occasion when a member of the House or some outside person notices some sort of problem in a regulation, they can bring that to our attention and we can take a look at it to see whether that regulation is ultra vires or whether it is appropriate. I admit that most of the problems we deal with are minor in nature. They tend to be related to translation where there could be a different word in French than in English. They may be minor misprints of one type or another. Sometimes they are technical in nature or legal in nature and the concerned departments will readily agree to alter them.
From time to time we strike things that are major in nature. The committee presently has the power to make a report to the House requesting disallowance of a regulation. We are very close to that situation now in connection with regulations for the participation of the police in political activities. For some years the committee has been very concerned about the police regulations which in effect make it illegal for a policeman to even stand at a shopping centre and gather names on a petition to not have a roadway go through his area.
That is how serious those regulations are. They so restrict political participation by police officers even on their own time that probably many of the activities of policemen during elections municipally, provincially or federally are illegal and they do not even realize it. For example, to wear the button of a political party when off duty or to have a sign on their lawn is illegal.
There is a major court case going on now in Quebec where these regulations are being challenged. Even with this, the committee has already recognized that this is inappropriate. We have been pressuring the solicitor general to get the law changed.
The process is happening right now. We are having a meeting tomorrow. We believe there will be new regulations drafted that meet the requirements for appropriateness. This is a very powerful function that the committee performs.
We have looked at the regulations in a totally non-partisan way. We have dealt with them. We have spoken with the solicitor general, with the drafters and we are getting those regulations replaced.
In the absence of any committee scrutiny or process whereby that can occur, all we end up with are ongoing legal battles. Eventually they reach some conclusion but it is a lot better for the political process to fix these problems promptly.
This is one of the reasons Reform is very supportive of this motion. The motion is not ideal in that the committees that these regulations will go before will probably be pretty much yes men and women for the government.