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.