House of Commons Hansard #203 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was endangered.

Topics

Species at Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Species at Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Species at Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Species at Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Species at Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Species at Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Message from the SenateGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

Presidential Election in ColumbiaGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2002 / 5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC

Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following:

That the House of Commons demand the immediate and unconditional release of Ingrid Betancourt, Senator and candidate in the presidential election held in Colombia on May 26, 2002, who was kidnapped on February 23, 2002, as well as the release of other civilians detained by FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), and that, to this end, the House support the Ingrid Betancourt Canadian Support Committee.

Presidential Election in ColumbiaGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Presidential Election in ColumbiaGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Presidential Election in ColumbiaGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

It being 5.58 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

moved, seconded by the member for Scarborough Southwest, that Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker,I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central and in fact all Canadians to debate my private member's bill, Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, disallowance procedure for statutory instruments, also called negative resolution procedure.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, a veteran Liberal member and vice-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, for seconding the bill.

As members will recall, a similar bill was tabled by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North in 1996 but it died on the order paper. The proposed amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act largely mirror the current disallowance procedure which is set out in the standing orders of the House of Commons.

For the information of the folks who are listening and watching the debate on the TV, statutory instruments or regulations, also called delegated legislation, give form and substance to legislation. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details or sometimes in the fine print. Let me say that here in this business the devil is in the regulations.

Twenty per cent of the law in the country is made up of legislation. The remaining 80% of the law is made up of delegated legislation, commonly called regulations and frequently called red tape. Legislation or bills are passionately debated in the House and voted in parliament, whereas there is virtually no debate, public input or even media scrutiny on regulations. This is an affront to democracy.

The only and limited scrutiny of delegated legislation or regulations in parliament is done by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, a joint committee of the House and the Senate. The members of the committee, legal counsels and staff, work very hard scouring through thousands of papers on dry, technical and legal subjects doing a painstaking, fastidious and thankless job. This is a committee that is generally misunderstood and ignored but it is an essential watchdog in protecting democracy, controlling bureaucracy and holding the government accountable. There is room for more public input and interest by the media.

The joint committee is non-partisan or less partisan and more objective than other committees of parliament. Its scrutiny of the regulations is limited to the validity and legality on the basis of a set of uniform and defined criteria and not on the basis of policy matters, general merits or necessity of a statutory instrument.

The committee works meticulously but due to many elements involved it works at a slow pace. That is the nature of the committee. It has a huge backlog of work in progress. Staff and resources allotted to the joint committee for the important work it does are nowhere near adequate.

I happen to be a three term co-chair of the joint committee representing all members in the House. Members across all party lines and legal counsels of the committee support Bill C-20 and it is on similar lines written earlier by the standing joint committee to the justice minister for appropriate action.

The joint committee works to improve and correct defects in regulations but its ultimate weapon is to disallow defective regulations, only used when strictly necessary. The status quo disallowance procedure is seriously defective.

Bill C-202 would establish a statutory disallowance procedure that would be applicable to all statutory instruments subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. This enactment would ensure that parliament will have the opportunity and the ability to disallow any statutory instruments made pursuant to authority delegated by parliament or made by or under the authority of the cabinet.

Through the bill, the Statutory Instruments Act is amended by adding a new section comprising the 10 subsections after section 19, which is the procedure for the disallowance of subordinate and delegated legislation.

Disallowance is a means at the disposal of parliament to control the making of delegated legislation. Parliamentarians are given an opportunity to reject a subordinate law made by a delegate of parliament.

Any general disallowance procedure ought to have a statutory basis. The lack of a general disallowance procedure as a means of asserting parliamentary control of delegated legislation prompted a great many recommendations that such a procedure be put in place.

Following the recommendation of the McGrath committee and as part of its overall regulatory reform strategy, the placement of the current disallowance procedure in the standing orders in 1986 was intended to be on an experimental and temporary basis.

The time has now come to give a more permanent status to that procedure, which was temporary and on an experimental basis, through its inclusion in a statute, preferably the Statutory Instruments Act.

In its 1992 report, the subcommittee on regulations and competitiveness of the finance committee recommended that the defect in the current procedure be addressed by proceeding with the adoption of a statutory procedure covering all statutory instruments. A mere resolution of the House of Commons is all that is required to amend the standing orders of the House.

Disallowance would be most appropriately dealt with in the Statutory Instruments Act but it can also be dealt with in a number of other statutes, such as the Parliament of Canada Act, the Interpretation Act or even in distinct statutes. Various disallowance procedures have been in existence in other Commonwealth jurisdictions for many years.

I would mention two glaring defects of the current procedure. First, that the procedure only applies in the House of Commons and not in the Senate.

Second, the disallowance is limited to those statutory instruments that are made by the governor in council or ministers of the crown. A fairly large body of subordinate law is not subject to disallowance, thus to parliamentary scrutiny. A large number of delegated laws escape parliament's scrutiny and there is no good reason, either in theory or practice, why a regulation or statutory instrument made by the governor in council or a minister can be disallowed by parliament while a regulation made by an agency or board cannot.

Under parliamentary orders the governor in council also delegates authority to make regulations to a number of quasi-government agencies or boards, such as the National Transportation Agency, CRTC, CIHR, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board, but parliament, through its standing joint committee, lacks the authority to propose the disallowance of any of those regulations of the excluded class. As a result, parliament is deprived of the opportunity to disallow important regulations made by these agencies or bodies.

It is clearly both logical and desirable that all statutory instruments subject to review by parliament under the Statutory Instruments Act be subject to disallowance. The current procedure simply cannot be invoked in relation to a large class of statutory instruments reviewed by the joint committee.

These two bodies of subordinate law are entirely a consequence of the choice made in 1986 by means of amending the standing orders of the House. This reform was meant to be temporary and if it had been successful it would have been extended to all statutory instruments reviewed by the committee.

After more than 15 years the time has come, although it has been long overdue, to place this procedure on a statutory footing with a view to increasing the effectiveness of parliamentary control of delegated legislation.

Another weakness of the existing procedure is that a House of Commons order asking the department to revoke a statutory instrument contains no form of sanction that would compel compliance, except in the case of contempt for the House of Commons.

Where the joint committee considers that a regulation should be annulled it can make a report to the House of Commons containing a resolution to the effect that regulation x should be revoked. Once that report is tabled in the House the applicable procedure would depend on a decision by the responsible minister. Should the appropriate authority neglect or refuse to comply with the disallowance order it would be open to the House to treat the failure to comply with the order as involving a contempt of the House.

While the House could deal with the matter as one of contempt there are no other legal sanctions, or even consequences, that arise from a failure to comply with a disallowance order. As a matter of law an order of the House of Commons that a particular regulation be revoked is not binding on the author of the regulation and cannot be enforced by a court of justice.

The standing orders also provide that where the committee recommends to revoke an instrument, and the report being tabled, no request is made by a minister for a debate. The resolution contained in the report is deemed to be concurred in by the House at the expiration of 15 sitting days. In this case as well the resolution is then treated as an order of the House that the regulation be revoked.

Under the status quo procedure, the revocation of an instrument disallowed by the House of Commons would ultimately depend on a decision of the governor in council or the appropriate minister to obey the order of the House of Commons or not.

Placing the disallowance procedure on a statutory footing, as this bill recommends, would remove the need for a regulation making authority to take subsequent action to give effect to an order of the House, thus eliminating the potential for conflict between the legislature and the executive.

Proposed subsection 19.1(9) is a new provision. By putting the disallowance procedure on a statutory footing, the procedure is also made more efficient as there is no longer a need for the House of Commons to address an order of the cabinet ordering the revocation of a statutory instrument. The legislation itself would now deem a disallowed instrument to be revoked. By eliminating the need for further action by the governor in council or the minister who adopted the disallowed instrument compliance with a disallowance decision would be improved by eliminating any possibility of a regulation making authority not complying with a disallowance order of the House.

It seems a little complicated and technical but those veteran members of the standing joint committee should understand. I am sure that other members have a fairly good idea. I tried to make it simple for them.

By providing that the revocation of an instrument does not take effect before the expiration of a 30 day deadline, the bill would ensure that the regulation making authority that made the disallowed regulation has an opportunity to take measures to mitigate any negative impact that the revocation might have, including the enactment of alternative regulations.

Proposed subsection 19.1(10) is also new. It would provide for the situation in which a minister has filed a motion to reject a proposed disallowance and the motion is not adopted. In that case, the proposed subsection 19.1(9) would deem the regulation or other instruments to be revoked at the expiration of 30 days from the day on which the motion to reject the disallowance was considered but failed to obtain the approval of the House.

Putting the present procedure on a statutory footing would not only ensure that parliament has effective control of the delegated legislation it authorizes, it would also allow for a simplification of the current procedure. Some 80% of the laws that Canadians face are through regulations and statutory instruments and most of them fall within the federal jurisdiction and affect every Canadian in many ways.

Bill C-202 is of very significant public concern. There is significant support from small, medium and large businesses, various organizations and stakeholders, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and chambers of commerce throughout the country.

As members of the House representing Canadians our most important responsibility is to protect democracy. It is incumbent upon all of us in the House irrespective of political parties to make the disallowance procedure more transparent and effective. This is a non-partisan issue. All of us must ensure than an appropriate and effective procedure is in place that has a statutory footing and that is enforceable.

The current practice of disallowance is not statutory, rather it is a halfway house. Because it is embodied in the standing orders it is limited to instruments the governor in council or a minister has the authority to revoke. It does not apply to all statutory instruments and most notably, does not apply to regulations made by agencies and bodies I mentioned. Nor does the disallowance take effect automatically after the reporting in the House. The governor in council or a minister must act in a sense ordered by the House.

By providing a clear legislative basis for the current disallowance procedure Bill C-202 would: first, allow parliament's authority to extend to all instruments subject to review under the Statutory Instruments Act instead of only those made by the governor in council or a minister.

Second, it would remove the necessity for additional action on the part of the regulation making authority in order to give effect to an order of the House that a regulation be revoked. Bill C-202 not only gives the act two recommendations made by numerous parliamentary committees who have studied the matter, but would both strengthen the current disallowance procedure and make that procedure more effective. Providing a statutory basis for disallowance would allow this defect to be corrected and would ensure parliament's full control of delegated legislation.

This regulatory reform is the beginning. I am certainly aware that further regulatory reforms are needed and there is room for improvements and amendments and strengthening of the bill can take place when it goes to committee.

I want to thank all the members from all parties who will be speaking to the bill, particularly the hon. members for Scarborough Southwest, Scarborough--Rouge River, Témiscamingue; Regina--Qu'Appelle; Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and Dauphin--Swan River, as well as many Senators who are supporting the bill, my co-chair Senator Hervieux-Payette and many other Senators who have been working hard on this committee. They understand what this disallowance procedure means and why it is important to restore transparency and protect democracy in the House of Commons.

I am optimistic that all members of the House will support this important, long overdue initiative by looking through the non-partisan lens. As the bill is votable I trust members will vote in favour of Bill C-202. All of us in the House, as one body, as Canadians with one voice, can reassure and strengthen democracy in parliament.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), introduced by the hon. member for Surrey Central.

The bill relates to the critical role that parliamentarians have to oversee the exercise of delegated legislative powers. For the past 30 years the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has performed an invaluable service to the House and the Senate, as well as to the Canadian public generally in its review of statutory instruments made under acts of parliament.

In 1986 the role of the standing joint committee was augmented by the addition of chapter 14 to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. This chapter provides what are often called disallowance procedures for the revocation of statutory instruments. These procedures involve the tabling of a report by the standing joint committee containing a resolution that a statutory instrument be revoked. If the resolution is adopted it becomes an order of the House to the government to revoke the statutory instrument in question.

To date, these disallowance procedures have been used to adopt a total of eight resolutions. The disallowance procedures of the standing orders process have worked well. The government has complied or is preparing to comply with all of the resolutions that have been adopted by the House.

Today we are being asked to consider a bill that would significantly extend the existing provisions for the parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation. It would amend the Statutory Instruments Act to include disallowance procedures similar to those that already exist in the Standing Orders of the House Commons.

However, there are some important differences between the current disallowance procedures and those proposed in the bill. The first is that the bill proposes to move beyond the traditional role of holding the government accountable to the House. It proposes that the House revoke statutory instruments itself. Another difference is that the proposed procedures would extend to all statutory instruments and not just to those made by the government, as is the case with the procedures in the standing orders.

Although I firmly support the procedures in the standing orders I have serious concerns about the bill. I would like to highlight these concerns by discussing the differences I have noted between the bill and the disallowance procedures in the standing orders. As I mentioned, the procedures in the bill provide that a resolution of the House would be effective to revoke a statutory instrument.

Under the existing procedures in the standing orders it is up to the government to decide whether and when to revoke a statutory instrument in response to a resolution. This might be described as a fail safe mechanism, which would be lost under the proposed provisions of Bill C-202. The fail safe mechanism allows the government to safeguard against gaps in the law that might result from the revocation of a statutory instrument and that might have unforeseen consequences.

This safeguard is particularly valuable when flexibility is necessary to give the government time to consider the implications of a disallowance report. A fail safe mechanism also helps to avoid gaps in the law.

Often there is a need for some regulatory measures and if the disallowed measures are not appropriate then alternative provisions are needed to replace them. The development of alternative provisions usually requires significant capacity to develop regulatory policy as well as familiarity with the regulated community.

This requires technical expertise and a consultative process that the government is generally in the best position to provide. This is recognized by the fact that parliament has delegated to the government the regulatory powers in question.

Another concern is that the bill would extend existing disallowance procedures to non-ministerial regulations. The bill provides that disallowance procedures would apply to any statutory instrument. This includes a vast number of documents, many of which are made by bodies that operate independently of government. Examples include administrative agencies such as the CRTC and the Canadian Transport Commission; the courts that make rules of procedure; aboriginal law-making bodies such as Indian bands; agricultural marketing boards; and local port authorities.

Although current disallowance procedures are appropriate for regulations made by ministers of the crown, it is not at all clear that they would be appropriate for the wide variety of other law-making bodies that make statutory instruments. The extension of disallowance procedures to instruments made by these bodies could raise the prospect of inappropriate parliamentary involvement in the affairs of bodies recognized as requiring a degree of autonomy in conducting their affairs.

The bill raises other concerns in addition to the two I have discussed. First, it would enshrine a parliamentary process in legislation. This would be a significant precedent which could invite court challenges to the business of the House.

Second, statutory disallowance powers that apply generally to all forms of delegated legislation are exceptional in Canada and parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom. Although statutory procedures are sometimes enacted for particular regulations, such general powers are not usual in these jurisdictions.

Third, the proposed procedure would not include a role for the Senate in the disallowance resolution. Although the Senate is represented on the standing joint committee it would have no role in approving disallowance resolutions. Some may argue that this presents no difficulties since the procedures operate through the political accountability of the government to the House. However under Bill C-202 the procedures would operate directly and automatically by force of statute. This could raise objections from senators about being excluded from decisions made under a statute the Senate helped enact.

The government is committed to ensuring parliamentarians have an effective role in overseeing the exercise of delegated legislative powers. In addition to implementing resolutions under the existing disallowance procedures in the standing orders the Minister of Justice, like his cabinet colleagues, is committed to addressing concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and making sure officials of their departments take the concerns every bit as seriously as they do.

I remind all members that the government always welcomes suggestions on how the working relationship between parliamentarians and the government can be improved.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-202, a private members' bill from the member for Surrey Central, one of the co-chairs of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

This bill may appear highly technical for those following the debate, but it is very important for parliamentarians, particularly given that many governmental decisions are made in the regulations rather than in the acts per se.

The purpose of this bill is to improve procedure so that members of the House can disallow a statutory instrument. People should know that there is a parliamentary committee that reviews regulations. It assesses the regulations and their consistency with the statute. In other words, it ensures that the regulations are legally justified, that they are well drafted and that they are within a justified context, with a solid legal foundation.

Occasionally, it is surprising to observe that by a simple error, and not because of bad intentions, statutory instruments are not consistent with the statute, which can lead to significant problems.

In other cases, it is clearly the lack of good faith in certain departments that leads them to draft statutory instruments where they have a tendency to expand powers more than they could otherwise.

As such, when members identify such a situation, they report it to the House. The bill at hand would improve the procedure available to members to disallow these regulations, but also to pressure the government to let the House debate these issues.

I am lucky—or unlucky, depending on your perspective—to sit on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, where the work is very technical, but nonetheless very interesting. We study cases where, after having identified a problem, we advise the department concerned, which then tells us “Your regulations are not consistent. You must redraft them. You are overstepping your powers”. Then an exchange of correspondence and discussions take place for years between the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and the departments involved. In cases such as these, the process is ineffective and meaningless.

Obviously, there are a great many statutory instruments, and I have a great deal of respect for those involved in drafting them. They are very competent people who are required to process an inordinate amount of information in a short time. However, the significant workload leads to problems. Furthermore, we must at least feel as though parliament has the will to correct things when problems are identified.

The remarks of the Liberal member who said “The government is always prepared to listen to new ideas to help elected members be more effective, but we will not support this bill” concern me.

For those who know how statutory instruments are dealt with, the process lacks any teeth. Ministers and departments do not take us seriously.

There has been talk since December about disallowing regulations based on exchanges or a disagreement between the committee and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in this case, but nothing ever comes of it. We never manage to do as much as we want. It is even complex getting the committee report on disallowance concurred in, but as soon as it is, the House will have to at least look into the matter in a more efficient fashion.

I will not dwell on the technicalities of the legislation, but there is pressure to respond within the short timeframe within the bill, which I find very interesting. The member in question knows a great deal about the subject, which is based on a recommendation that goes back some 15 years, to move in that direction. So, this is an idea that is again being raised here to say “This is something we should have done a long time ago”.

I feel compelled to warn members that they should be concerned about the fact so much goes through regulations instead of the legislative process.

If we members of parliament want to retain some control over the decisions taken, the legislation has to be as explicit as possible. When regulations are made to complement the act, as is the case for immigration here, mechanisms have to be enshrined in the act to ensure that the political base for the legislation is reviewed.

Today for example, in connection with the Immigration Act, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has the power to review the regulations. The minister had to table them in the House. It is therefore not something that we see regularly, but it is at least going in the right direction.

However, many departments and ministers do not place such constraints on themselves. The governor in council is adopting many regulations that are not submitted to us.

One of the objectives of the member's bill is to ensure that when there are problems with the on the legal foundation or basis for the regulations, we can at least take this power back or give ourselves tools to make ministers and departments more accountable to this House.

I can therefore only applaud this initiative. I will support it and urge my colleagues to do the same. I hope that a majority of members will support it, so that we can finally have greater influence on decisions made in this House, perform to the maximum our role as members and balance a little better the powers between ministers and departments, and the members of parliament.

I support the member's initiative because it gives us a little more teeth to do our job. When time comes, I will support it.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Inky Mark Canadian Alliance Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on behalf of the P.C. Party of Canada. Let me first congratulate the member for Surrey Central on his Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, disallowance procedure for statutory instruments.

For our viewers, let me repeat the intent of the bill. This enactment would establish the statutory disallowance procedure that would be applicable to all statutory instruments, subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. In so doing, this enactment would ensure that parliament would have the opportunity to disallow any statutory instrument made pursuant to authority delegated by parliament or made by or under the authority of the cabinet. In other words, the committee would have the right to really have some teeth and scrutinize the regulations that come before the committee.

This disallowance procedure is very necessary to hold the government accountable. Currently there is no provision to disallow badly flawed regulations.

We heard the member from the government side state that the committee could send to the government by resolution the suggestion or list of regulations that should be disallowed. Through the years I have been here, I have not experienced that.

I have had real experience and I have sat on the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. Back in 1997, when I first came to this House, I really found out how difficult it was to get rid of poorly crafted regulations, thousands of regulations, that came before the committee. One thing I realized was we were looking at regulations not one or two years old, but three, four, five and six years old.

My own opinion is that the joint committee really has no teeth. In other words, because it takes so much time to scrutinize the regulations that come before committee, it takes years and years of work before anything can possibly happen.

If the House is to have some control over the thousands of regulations that are written, then a disallowance procedure is a must. Surely there must be some regulations that are unnecessary. At this time there is no method to disallow other than reporting back to the House. A case in point are the regulations pertaining to Bill C-68. Many of the regulations under that piece of legislation are unnecessary and need to be rejected.

Over the last 30 years we have seen government abuse the use of orders in council to approve all kinds of regulations with no formal scrutiny. In my opinion this is a pure abuse of power.

The government members say that authority is delegated to the government. Yes, I believe they do have lots of delegated power and authority, but all authority needs to be scrutinized at all times.

Today in a world of framework and enabling legislation, which seems to be the kind of legislation we experience daily in this House, legislators have very little control over legislation. As the House knows, it is still the norm that ministers rarely table any regulations with the standing committees. The exception to that is the immigration committee which I sit on. In the last month we literally scrutinized Bill C-11 regulations, which was rather unusual to say the least.

Let me talk a little about regulations per se. As members know, regulations cover all areas of our life and they impact all of us daily. On the fiscal side certainly, regulations are a form of hidden taxation. As they raise the cost of doing business, Canadians end up paying relatively higher prices for goods and services.

They also kill jobs by making Canada less competitive. In fact on the agricultural side, farmers are always complaining, rightly so, about the new taxes they have to pay. Again a lot of it is assessment by regulations.

The government does not always consider whether a new regulation will meet its goal, whether it is the most cost effective method of protecting the public or whether it will have unintended side effects. I guess that is why we have a joint committee to scrutinize regulations, but again if that joint committee does not have real teeth to deal with bad regulations then it really is just exercise in futility.

In some cases less costly alternatives such as negotiated compliance are not considered. A regulatory environment that subjects the economy to regulations only where and when needed is critical to the creation of a vital and vibrant economy. However the regulatory burden imposed on Canadian business acts as a costly impediment on the productivity growth that is essential to an improved standard of living. We hear very little about regulations that impact the economy on the economic side.

The view of the PC Party is that governments should work toward the co-operative elimination of excessive regulations, overlap, duplication and waste in the allocation of responsibilities between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. We are probably the most over-governed and over-legislated country in the world. We love to create legislation without reviewing old legislation. A member from the opposition side asked why a lot of our bills did not have sunset clauses. That is an excellent idea.

Governments should implement an annual red tape budget which would detail the estimated total cost of each individual regulation, including the enforcement cost to the government and the compliance cost to individual citizens and businesses.

Governments should also establish regulatory service standards and devote the resources needed to meet those standards, thus ensuring they do not result in undue pressure being placed upon regulators to improve questionable products.

Governments should also work toward ensuring that user fees which are tied to regulatory approval are limited to no more than the cost of actually providing that approval. Further, those fees should be used to improve services allowing for greater regulatory approval.

In light of the effect it has on the economy of the country and on the lives of people, does it not make sense that all new regulations be scrutinized by the standing committees of the House? That at least should be a minimum requirement. We would require new regulations to be written in a way that is simple and easy to understand. All new regulations should be scrutinized by the standing committees, as I have just indicated.

A Progressive Conservative government would ensure that all proposed regulations are put on the departmental website for 30 days to allow for greater public awareness before they are published in the Canada Gazette .

In closing, regulations impact us daily but the problem is we really do not have an effective vehicle to scrutinize regulations and get rid of the ones that should not be there and that in effect do nothing for the country or for us as people of the country. The PC Party of Canada supports Bill C-202.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Tom Wappel Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased not only to speak to the bill this evening, but to second it and to indicate my support for it.

I will just give a brief bit of history. I was asked to sit on the scrutiny of regulations committee first in April 1989. I have been on that committee in an uninterrupted capacity, except for elections of course, since 1989. I have served as the co-chair of that committee and I am currently the vice chair of that committee. Considering 13 years of experience on the committee, I think I have something to offer in terms of the debate on this bill.

I would like to begin by quoting at length from a letter dated December 20, 1999 which was sent from the then co-chairs of the committee and the vice chair of the committee to the then minister of justice, who is now the Minister of Health. The co-chairs at that time were Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette and the member for Surrey Central. They still are the co-chairs. The vice chair was myself and I am still the vice chair. However, if I quote significant portions of the letter, it will become clear what the problem is and why the suggested solution in C-202 is a good one. I begin on page one. It says:

For the last quarter of this century, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has reviewed instruments of delegated legislation pursuant to its statutory mandate and in accordance with the rules of both Houses. Thoughtful participants in and observers of the federal regulation making process acknowledge that parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation has played a useful role in maintaining and improving the quality of federal regulations. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons also provide for a disallowance procedure that applies to a category of statutory instruments, to wit those made by the Governor in Council or a Minister. These provisions of the Standing Orders were adopted in 1986 following a recommendation of the McGrath committee and earlier recommendations of the Joint Committee itself. As you probably know, the placement of the current disallowance procedure in the Standing Orders was intended to be temporary and we feel time has come to give a more permanent status to that procedure through its inclusion in a statute, preferably the Statutory Instruments Act.

I continue at the top of page 2, which says:

The most glaring problem with the current disallowance procedure is that it only applies to statutory instruments made by the Governor in Council or by a Minister. The result is that a fairly large body of subordinate law is not subject to disallowance. In our view, there is no good reason, in either theory or practice, why a regulation made by the Governor in Council can be disallowed by Parliament while the regulation made by the National Transportation Agency or the National Energy Board cannot. That a distinction was made between these two bodies of subordinate law is entirely a consequence of the choice made in 1986 to implement the new disallowance procedure by means of amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

I turn to page 3 and quote again:

Putting the current procedure on a statutory footing would not only ensure that Parliament's control of the delegated legislation is more effectively exercised, it would also allow for a simplification of the present procedure. At the moment, the revocation of an instrument disallowed by the House of Commons ultimately depends on a decision of the Governor in Council or the appropriate Minister to obey the order of the House of Commons. While constitutionally persuasive, as a matter of law an order of the House of Commons is not binding on the author of a disallowed instrument and cannot be enforced by the courts.

Finally, also on page 3, it says:

It has always been the view of this Committee that any general disallowance procedure ought to have a statutory basis. That view was endorsed by the McGrath committee [in 1986] and later, by the Sub-committee on Regulations and Competitiveness. Indeed, as we noted above, when the current procedure was put in place, it was stated to be an experiment whose success would lead to the implementation of a statutory procedure.

I wholeheartedly agreed with those comments when I signed the letter. I still agree with them today, even more so.

We heard today from the parliamentary secretary that the current procedure is working and it is, as far as it goes. I remind everyone that it was an experiment. If it was working, it was to be turned into a statutory disallowance procedure. The McGrath committee said that and the Subcommittee on Regulations and Competitiveness said that. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary that the government does not want to do that. That is unfortunate.

The parliamentary secretary laid out a few criticisms of the bill. Some of them are warranted, but they can easily be remedied at committee stage with amendments. It is not necessary to defeat the bill now in order to deal with some of the comments the parliamentary secretary made.

For example, that there is no role for the Senate in the current legislation is clearly something the mover of the bill could deal with at his appearance before the committee. It is something the committee could deal with by way of appropriate amendments. That is certainly not fatal to defeat the bill at second reading.

I want to make a couple of comments on some of the alleged problems with the bill. We already have a disallowance procedure. It is in the rules. It has been around. It is successful by admission. The only problem is it does not deal with all regulations.

It does not make sense for the Parliament of Canada to be able to disallow a regulation proposed by the governor in council or a minister, but not disallow a regulation proposed by some subdelegate. It just does not make any logical sense. Indeed in many cases the ordinary Canadian is impacted far more by the regulatory agency than by perhaps a regulation made by a minister.

Who oversees the regulations of those regulatory agencies? Not parliament. How does that make parliament supreme? We often hear wonderful speeches in the House about how parliament is supreme. How is parliament supreme if parliament cannot review the regulations proposed by subdelegates of a minister but can review the regulations proposed by a minister? It does not make sense logically or legally.

Comments were made that the bill is substantially the same as the current standing orders. I would argue that is not true. The simple reason is that the standing orders, as I just said, do not deal with many regulations brought forward by agencies and that is a huge hole as far as I can see. On the fail-safe mechanism, perhaps this is the result of some misunderstanding by the justice department, but it is fairly clear there is already a fail-safe mechanism in the rules. If the minister does not want the regulation defeated, the minister can bring a motion which would then be debated and voted upon. If the House of Commons decided that the resolution to disallow was to be defeated, that would be the fail-safe mechanism.

The bill has exactly the same fail-safe mechanism. If a resolution were brought under the statutory footing asking that the regulation be disallowed, the minister could say “No, I am going to bring a motion that the resolution be defeated”. If the minister can convince the House of Commons that the resolution to disallow should be defeated, it will be defeated. The House of Commons remains supreme. The minister is in control if his or her arguments are sound. Where is the problem? To say that somehow parliament should not have the authority to examine the regulations of agencies which are creatures of the House of Commons, which are created by the House of Commons, is with all due respect such a huge gap in logic as to be virtually laughable.

I have examined the bill carefully. I see no reason that the House should not support it at second reading, send it to committee, examine some of the considerations that the parliamentary secretary and the Department of Justice have put forward, and then propose amendments which can be dealt with by the House of Commons.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey Central for the opportunity to speak today in support of his private member's bill, Bill C-202.

Before getting into my remarks, I thank the hon. member for all the diligent work on the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations that he has done. Much of that work is not visible to the public. While it is a committee that works in relative obscurity, it is important work indeed. It takes a dedicated parliamentarian to do this important work without the publicity or recognition that it deserves. For his dedication to democracy, I wish to compliment him. The constituents in Surrey Central should be proud of the work that their member of parliament is doing in the House of Commons for their benefit and the benefit of all Canadians.

I have been in the House for almost nine years. The experience has caused me to question the effectiveness of democracy and how it operates in Canada. I will speak a lot from my experience in the House.

For those Canadians watching on television, I want to outline what we are doing here and simplify the debate. Day by day we debate all the laws in Canada by which Canadians need to live. We continually try to fine-tune through our debate and analysis of bills the laws that are passed here and to which all Canadians must adhere in their day to day lives.

Legislation passed by the Liberal government is mostly enabling legislation. By that I mean the laws enable the government through regulation to determine the details of the legislation by which we all have to live.

The key point to be made, and that is what we are discussing, is that much less scrutiny is given to the regulations in the House. That is an extremely serious flaw in the legislative process. However we do have a committee that deals with that.

It is often said when we are talking about a contract or agreement that the devil is in the details. The regulations are the nuts and bolts and determine how the legislation will affect the daily lives of Canadians. We need to strengthen that part of the process. Bill C-202 is an important step in that direction. Canadians are greatly affected by regulations. We can liken it to the fine print in a contract.

To give Canadians an idea of how much work the standing joint committee is required to do, I dug out some statistics that were prepared for me last year by the research branch of the Library of Parliament. In just seven years, between 1994 and 2000, the Liberal government introduced 4,931 individual statutory instruments and statutory order regulations. That is 23,566 pages of federal regulations. The sheer volume of the work before the standing joint committee is overwhelming. We should not make its job more difficult when it identifies a regulation that does not comply with the laws passed by parliament. That is important.

It might be embarrassing for the minister and the government when the standing joint committee discovers that they did not follow the government's own laws but we should not tie the committee's hands when it wants to correct these regulatory errors.

It is clear to almost everyone that the disallowance procedure for statutory instruments should be part of the legislation. That is the oversight Bill C-202 attempts to correct.

As it stands now, if the standing joint committee identifies a regulation that does not comply with the laws passed by parliament, it issues a report to both the House of Commons and the Senate to disallow the specific regulations that were made in error. However under the disallowance procedure followed now, it is left completely to the discretion of the minister of the crown or the governor in council, which is really just a council of ministers, to revoke, amend or ignore the regulations identified in the report of the standing joint committee. Even the courts are unable to do anything about a regulation that is subject to a disallowance report.

Bill C-202 will fix those obvious defects. The purpose of the bill is to bring the Statutory Instruments Act into the 21st century.

This bill will give the disallowance procedure a firm legal footing. In the process it will strengthen our democratic processes and thereby be of great service to all Canadians. Once a law is passed by parliament giving the government the power to make regulations, it is vital to our democracy that these regulations be in full compliance with the law.

I will not have the opportunity to finish my remarks but I will conclude by saying that I have had a lot of personal experience and I feel that we do not realize how important this change is to the parliamentary process. We really cannot fix the flaws that thwart the democratic process. This is private members' business and I appeal to all people to pay close attention to it. All backbench MPs should carefully look at this bill because it will improve the legislation in the House. I hope I can conclude my remarks at some other time.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Consequently, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 53(1), the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole for a take note debate on the Canadian health care system. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(House in committee on Government Business No. 28, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

That this House take note of the review of the Canadian health care system by the Romanow Commission.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this take note debate in the House tonight. It is an important opportunity for all members to discuss the review of the Canadian health care system by the Romanow Commission.

I rise this evening to participate in this special take note debate on the future of health care in Canada. As all members are aware, on April 4, 2001, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the commission on the future of health care in Canada, to be chaired by former Saskatchewan premier Mr. Roy Romanow. Commissioner Romanow's mandate is to “recommend policies and measure to ensure over the long term the sustainability of our universally accessible, publicly funded health system that offers quality services to Canadians”.

His mandate could not be more important. This is clear from the overwhelming public involvement in the commissioner's activities over the past few months as he has undertaken the second and final phase of his work, a dialogue with the Canadian public and interested stakeholders. The commissioner has heard thoughtful and carefully considered submissions from citizens about their experiences within the health care system, including members of aboriginal communities, and from health care providers about the challenges they face in providing care to the best of their abilities.

This take note debate and the commissioner's recent public meetings with members of parliament, unprecedented, by the way, in the history of royal commissions in this country, are equally a reflection of the importance of this work.

Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to recognize and thank my colleagues in the House for the time and effort they have taken to consult with their constituents about the renewal of our health care system and to communicate their views to the commissioner and to me. I invite them to continue this very important work.

I also want to acknowledge the important contributions to this national debate made by recent provincial and territorial commissions and public consultations, by the National Health Forum in 1997 and by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, led by Senator Michael Kirby.

The challenge we all face, citizens, Commissioner Romanow, members of parliament, our provincial and territorial colleagues and others, is to renew and reinvigorate our cherished health care system so that we can all have confidence that it will be there for us when we need it, providing timely access to high quality care.

Members will understand that I am not in a position this evening to talk about the specific steps we should take to improve our health care system. For that, we must await the delivery of Commissioner Romanow's final report in November and the careful deliberations that will follow. What I can and do want to talk about right now, though, is values.

I agree with Commissioner Romanow, as he has stated many times through the course of his public hearings, that the health care renewal debate is first and foremost a debate about values. As a nation we face three very tough questions. What should our health care system include? How should our health care services be delivered? How should we pay for our health care system?

As members of parliament charged with the responsibility of giving voice to the concerns and opinions of our constituents, our starting point in answering these questions has to be this fundamental question: What values do Canadians want to see reflected in their health care system?

What I hear Canadians saying loud and clear is that their core values are shared risk and equality of access. Taken together, these values may be equated to a strong sense of solidarity. It is through our health care system, better than anything else in the minds of most Canadians, that we reflect our solidarity with each other, with our family members, within our communities, as between our provinces and territories, and within our country. We also know that Canadians want a health care system that is publicly administered. The government must and will keep these core values foremost in its mind as we move forward.

Canadians also put a very high premium on the need for the federal government to demonstrate leadership in creating and maintaining national standards that give shape to the bedrock values of shared risk and equality of access. The government of Prime Minister Pearson played an historic role in this regard, introducing the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which received unanimous support as it passed into law on April 10, 1957, and provided the foundation of our national public and universal health care system.

The government takes very seriously its responsibilities as guardian of the governing principles of our health care system as set out in the Canada Health Act: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, public administration and portability. This is a challenge within our federation, in which the provinces and territories are primarily responsible for the delivery of health care on a day to day basis. It is, however, a challenge that can and will be met with good faith and respect on all sides.

Canadians are fed up with governments arguing with one another over blame, money and jurisdiction, worrying that the object of this bickering, their most cherished social program, is sliding away from them for lack of concerted action on the part of those entrusted to govern. The federal government will not let Canadians down.

Canadians are pragmatic in the very best sense of that word. They understand that our health care system is not functioning as well as it can or should and they are realistic about the need for change. They are prepared to make the changes necessary to ensure that our health care system is sustainable for the future, as long as those changes are consistent with their values.

On these very important questions, I look forward to the advice I will receive from Commissioner Romanow when he delivers his final report in November of this year. I obviously also look forward to the views of members of the House on all sides this evening. For all of us, citizens, health care providers, members of parliament and our provincial and territorial colleagues, the process of health care renewal that lies ahead will put a premium on our intelligence, our goodwill and our spirit of partnership. I am confident that we will once more rise to the challenge.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for her speech and for her participation in this debate.

I know that this debate cannot be reduced to mere fiscal considerations. However, I wonder if the minister agrees with me that, since 1997—and I am ready to table a document if the House so wishes—eight out of ten provinces have set up working groups to study the transformations that will occur in the various health care systems.

There is no longer one single health care system. There are ten of them. The various working groups that submitted their reports to their respective governments all pointed out that health care spending would increase by 5% over the next few years.

I was looking at the rate of increase of federal government revenues, which is 6.4% a year.

Therefore, I would like to ask the minister—and I will have the opportunity to elaborate on that when I make my speech later on—if she can tell us tonight whether she intends to be the ally of all premiers, from Bernard Lord to Mr. Landry to Mr. Campbell in British Columbia, to use her voice in cabinet to argue in favour of increasing transfers to the provinces so they can respond to this pressure on their respective systems to the tune of 5% a year.

Can she tell us tonight whether she is going to use her voice in cabinet to support the provinces' demands for more funding?

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Anne McLellan Liberal Edmonton West, AB

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the funding of our health care system is an important issue, but I am one of those who believes that simply putting more money into the system is not going to lead to the renewal of the system that will make it sustainable well into the future.

However, let me say that no one should forget that we put $21.1 billion, which were new dollars, into health care in the accord entered into by our Prime Minister and the premiers in September 2000. As well, we have put in additional dollars, not insignificant dollars, for example, $1 billion for the medical equipment fund, close to $800 million in terms of a primary health care transition fund, and half a billion dollars for work with the provinces toward the creation of an electronic health record. All of these are important financial contributions.

That is not even to include the funds we provide through many sources for the basic research in the country that will ensure we have the knowledge to provide the basis for a sustainable health care system in the future.

I understand the hon. member's point. Obviously the financing of the system is something that we will continue to discuss in good faith with the provinces.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the minister's remarks. In particular, I was struck with the word renewal in regard to our health care system. I understand that Mr. Romanow is going across this country and I think many people have great hopes of what he will come out with in his report next November. We certainly appreciated the opportunity to dialogue with him last week when we discussed health care with him.

What he is doing is very important and I am not trying to diminish it, but when we start talking about renewal it sort of scares me because I do not believe our health care needs renewal. I believe our health care needs support, it needs foresight and it needs leadership, all of which we have seen such a tremendous lack of over the last year.

It really disturbs me when I see what has happened to the number one priority of this country, which is health care. I agree with the minister when she at least acknowledges that. That is the way the electorate sees health care. This is very important and it is very important that we look at some of the challenges coming down the road in health care. I will mention that a little bit later in my remarks, but my question for the minister comes to the issue of the billion dollars and what happened in the accord of 2000.

In the accord of 2000, there was $1 billion for medical equipment. We just have had reports about it. I have been following this all spring, actually, and have been waiting for the minister to come forward or for the figures to come forward at the end of the fiscal year so that we would know how the money was actually being spent. Now we see that almost half that money, $486 million, is unaccounted for.

Some of the money was spent inappropriately. Some of it was put into what not many people would see as high tech equipment, such as lawn mowers, sewing machines, icemakers and so on. I am wondering if the minister would like to comment on the lack of accountability in giving that money to the provinces and not watching where it went.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Anne McLellan Liberal Edmonton West, AB

In fact, Mr. Chairman, the accord of 2000 entered into between the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces and the territories included the commitment of the $1 billion to the medical equipment fund. The agreement is quite clear that provinces in receipt of that money must account to their citizens, their residents. They are not accountable directly, and the agreement states this, to us, the federal government, but to the people of the country and particularly to the people who live in their provinces. They all undertook to account. In fact they have all communicated with my predecessor, who wrote to them twice. I am in possession of letters from all provincial and territorial health ministers.

Are they in different stages in terms of using the funds? Yes, they are. For example, from the province of Quebec we heard an announcement yesterday, I believe, that their remaining $100 million of federal dollars, along with additional funds from the province, will be dispensed. They made announcements yesterday about the funding of high tech equipment in various regional health facilities across the province of Quebec. This is happening across the country.

I want to reassure the hon. member that to the best of our knowledge at this point, the money in fact has not been spent. Please do not say that the money is not accounted for. The provinces and the territories have drawn down all their money from the fund that was established by the Department of Finance. Have they all spent it at this point? No. Have they all written the cheques for the equipment they have ordered at this point? No. Certainly we will be watching very carefully to ensure that the money is spent as was originally intended. I am aware of some of the concerns around what some of the money may have been spent for. This is something that I have asked my deputy minister to pursue with the respective provincial deputy ministers.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Chairman, let me take a slightly different tack than the critic for the Alliance Party and suggest that our system needs both renewal and cash.

I think it would be helpful for us to hear from the minister if she fully understands that in fact the cash is the glue that holds our system together and is vital in terms of the future of medicare and our ability to have a national system.

My question, though, really relates to the process, because this is a wonderful opportunity for parliament finally to debate the future of health care and to have input into the Romanow commission. It is long overdue. It is something the health committee has not been able to do. We have desperately needed this debate. It is good that finally we are having it tonight.

My concern, though, is about the process, because Canadians are very worried that we will put all this effort into the Roy Romanow commission, he will come up with a report and it will get buried or be allowed to gather dust on some shelf because of all the machinations around the leadership of the Liberal Party, all the debacle going on and all the questions about what will happen.