Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-84.
First of all, let me say that this bill will effect changes in more than 60 acts or bills currently before this House. Its passage will therefore have a very major impact on federal legislation.
Bill C-84 seeks to replace the old Statutory Instruments Act with a new Regulations Act completely consolidated and revised. Like the act it seeks to replace, the bill sets out the principles and administrative procedures that will govern the four steps involved in drafting new regulations: preparation, passage, enactment and publication of regulations passed under federal statutes.
The bill also confirms the reviewing power of the Standing Joint Committee for the scrutiny of Regulations, ensures better control by Parliament and maintains governmental responsibility over the regulatory process.
In short, Bill C-84 provides, first, a simpler definition of "regulation", second, an expedited process for regulations that do not require legal review, third, a revision of the bases for exempting regulations from the regulatory process, and, fourth, a modernization of the regulatory process by providing for consultation, registration and publication by electronic means.
Bill C-84 therefore aims at modernizing the current act and correcting the problems encountered with the present regulatory process.
I will now review some major items in Bill C-84 that I find very important. First of all, the definition of "regulation" is simpler and more principled than the current term "statutory instruments" found in Section 2. This legislation also specifies that regulations
also include all kinds of lists and guidelines, putting an end to an ambiguity in the current act.
It seems also that publication by electronic means will shortly become an addition to regular printing of the Canada Gazette , but it might be possible for the government to eliminate the printed copy of the Canada Gazette by publishing only by electronic means.
In this case, why not include a reference to the printing, even though that might involve limited editions? Bill C-84 eliminates the requirement of printing a specific number of copies of regulations during the regulatory process, allowing for substantial savings, even in the absence of electronic means.
One can only wonder why goals in the areas of security, health and the environment are specifically mentioned like in Bill C-62. Is it yet another backhanded way of intruding into provincial jurisdictions? Criteria concerning the use of this exemption power of the governor in council are not crystal clear.
Why not extend the prohibition in clause 64 concerning the Defence Production Act to other federal statutes with a significant impact on health and the environment such as big economic development projects like pipelines, Hibernia, nuclear plants and so on? To be able to answer that question, we need to have the complete list of exempted regulations and of other regulations that could be exempted later on if Bill C-84 is passed.
It also seems unthinkable that clause 11(4) should provide that no regulation is invalid because it was not published. We need more openness in this government. Regulations have force of law and should always be published in the Canada Gazette . This bill does provide that no penalty can be imposed for a violation of unpublished regulations. We think that people in Canada and Quebec have the absolute right to know which regulations are in force. Why make regulations if there is no penalty when they are disobeyed?
Sometimes, groups or businesses will find out about regulations only when the quarterly index is published.
As a matter of fact, this bill introduces a publication and distribution system for regulations that can be tailored to fit every single case. Clause 15 should simply be dropped, in our opinion.
This new regulatory process would allow the federal government to withdraw gradually from regulating certain industries through the incorporation by reference of private or international standards.
Clause 16(5) provides that an amendment made by a business or a foreign government could have force of law in Canada as soon as it is announced. This in spite of the fact that the amendment is not published as a regulation in The Canada Gazette or in both official languages, particularly in French where American standards are concerned. Considering the context of free trade in North America and eventually in both Americas, this may jeopardize the position of the French language.
The purpose of having a regulation incorporate material by reference is twofold. First of all, to remove the requirement for the federal government to regulate every aspect of the sector concerned. Second, to take advantage of the expertise of Canadian, American and international organizations that set standards which, sooner or later, will have to be adopted by Canadian industry. In fact, industry is being asked to regulate itself. Incorporation by reference means that standards can be updated directly by the agencies or governments concerned, while the federal government in Canada is not obliged to adopt them.
This "privatization" and "internationalization" of business and industrial regulations, probably on the basis of American and international standards, opens the door to the adoption of standards that are drafted exclusively in English.
Even if the code is available in French, in accordance with clause 16(2), what assurance do we have that subsequent amendments will be published in French by the American association or, simultaneously, by the Canadian regulatory authority? Clause 17 on accessibility is not, in our view, a sufficient guarantee in this regard.
It is possible to conclude that a number of documents incorporated by reference in a regulation with force of law in Canada will be neither published nor available in French from the regulatory authority. Will Quebecers have access to regulations wholly in French only after Quebec attains sovereignty? One must wonder.
We are also proposing an amendment to clause 25 in the form of a new paragraph (3) requiring the government to submit the draft regulations to the regulatory committee at the same time as it tables its bills in the House of Commons.
Also, subparagraph 26( g )(i) authorizing the making of secret regulations concerning the conduct of federal-provincial affairs must be struck out. Bill C-84 is suggesting here that provinces, like foreign countries, are enemies of the federal government. This same precaution probably does not even exist in European legislation for the Fifteen.
How can an atmosphere of harmony, consensus and co-operation between federal and provincial governments be created when even regulations call for secrecy in federal-provincial affairs? Is such a clause necessary in international relations today? We feel that the defence of Canada is the only part of 26( g ) fully justified today.
Bill C-84 uses the French expression "autorité réglementante" and there is no such word in French as "réglementante". The expression that should be used instead is "autorité réglementaire" to designate the institutions, departments, organizations and
commissions with regulatory authority, in keeping with the definition found in the 1990 edition of
Trésor de la langue française.
In conclusion, we agree that Bill C-84 is modernizing the existing regulatory process provided by the Regulations Act and deserves our support, but let us support it only after the government has adopted the many amendments we have mentioned today.
