Mr. Speaker, the main point in the bill is that the devil is in the detail and these were examples. The members obviously have some examples and if they wanted more they could look at the tax credits or transit passes of Kyoto.
However, let us move on to the regulations. Clause 16 states:
The governor in council may,--
It says “may”:
--on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including--
It then goes on for three paragraphs.
As I discussed with the members earlier, the regulations can be extremely important and vital to the operations of a piece of legislation. I understand that projects for bridges or tunnels, whether to build a new one, repair one or change its ownership will have some fundamental differences. Look at the Minister of Transport's speech. It was all about the vital nature of safety and security issues that we needed to take care of very specifically.
In particular, clause 16 on safety and security says that it may issue regulations requiring persons, who own or operate bridges or tunnels, to develop and implement security plans and establish security management systems. What does it mean by it “may” develop a security and safety plan? What does it mean “may”? Why is that not in the legislation subject to the regulations where the detail would be? That is what it is supposed to be. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Safety and security plans must be tabled with every project and the details of what has to be included must be put in regulations which can be amended from time to time by order in council. I do not want a bill that says we may do this and, for our friends, maybe we will not. This is a recipe for abuse and lack of accountability. Can we not put this in the legislation? There is another requirement which states:
--must be included in the security plans and requiring persons who own or operate international bridges or tunnels to make the additions, changes or deletions to their security plans that the Minister considers appropriate--
This seems to be a general catch-all, but it was the last one that got me. Subclause 16(c) under “Regulations” states:
--requiring any person or class of persons to provide to the Minister any information related to the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.
Think about it. This is a regulation that the minister “may” come forward with, requiring any person or class of persons to provide the minister any information related to the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.
I must say that the first things I thought of were constitutional rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the rule of law. What is this? This is utter nonsense. What kind of catch-all is this? Does anybody in the House really understand what it is? What does it say? Can anybody stand in this place and give me an example? If no one can, then why is it that we are being asked to debate this at second reading and vote to give approval in principle which, once we do that, based on ignorance, we will not be able to reverse?
This is nonsense. This is making law by regulations. I hope members get interested in this because there is more. Let us look at paragraph 39(5)(b) where there are more regulations. It states:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting--
(b) the return of the evidence to the person from whom it was seized or to any other person entitled to its possession.
This is pursuant to paragraph 39(1)(c), which I guess we have to read in order to understand what that means.
Clause 43 is another one. It states:
The Minister may, by regulation,
I will move down to paragraph (b):
prescribe the maximum amount payable for each violation,--
If a law prescribes violations and penalties, then I hate to tell the House that there will be penalties and they will be prescribed in the regulations. It may be better to be put in the legislation that there will be penalties and the penalties are as laid out in the regulations.
This idea of the government saying it “may” do this really bothers me. We are going to see this often. We as parliamentarians must be more vigilant. If we are expected to vote on legislation and want to be accountable in this place, then we must know what is being asked of us. It is not here.
Usually a department would provide briefing notes with an explanation on each clause. Members get those notes the first time a bill goes to committee and after all the witnesses. Members do not even have that information when they are talking to witnesses. I hope potential witnesses will look at this bill and say we are missing something, or we are on a track that basically says Parliament is going to give us approval in principle and then we are going to slap on what we really want to do in the regulations because it says we can do it. That is law made by the executive. It is law made by regulation and it is wrong.
This bill is a perfect example of this. It is a straightforward bill on a very important matter. It provides a legislative foundation and framework by which we can deal with issues to do with the international bridges and tunnels. It has some environmental implications et cetera.
What is the legislative framework in the United States? The United States have had it for a number of years. We are now bringing ours into line. I wonder what the United States has to say about this. I wonder whether or not we have patterned this on the American framework. It is clear to me that everything that is happening around here seems to be looked at through the lens of the American people. This is what I call the sniff test and the sniff test is telling me that we are very slowly embarking on the Americanization of Canada.
It seems to me that everything we do is based on what the United States does. It seems to me that we have taken on the attitude that if the United States does something then maybe we should do it too. The attitude seems to be that if the United States wants to steal our billion dollars on softwood lumber, then let it steal it. If it wants to have a maximum quote and have managed trade instead of free trade, that is okay. It seems to me that is the way we are doing business. We have to have big Bush and little Bush. What the heck.