House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was justice.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 56% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Regulations Act October 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-84, an act to provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs following first reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed make that motion. I say that Bill C-84, which is intended as a new regulations act, should go to the committee, and members of this Parliament should have the opportunity, before the House decides in principle on this approach to regulation, to discuss its terms.

It may seem that the legislation that governs the making of regulations in government is a technical or a dry subject, but in fact it will surprise some of the members to know that indeed there is a great deal of interest in this subject. There is a great deal of interest among Canadians because that process, the process by which subordinate legislation is made, has a direct effect on the way business is done in this country, on the productivity, on the competitiveness of business.

May I say that this proposed legislation is intended to increase the productivity and the competitiveness of our economy, which this government believes it will do.

I also observe this motion and indeed the regulations act, which is being sent to committee after first reading, is another good example of the value of Standing Order 73(1) of the House of Commons, which was sponsored by my hon. colleague the House leader at the opening of this Parliament.

The new regulations act to which I speak today is intended to replace the Statutory Instruments Act, which for almost 25 years now has governed the Canadian system of making regulations. Bill C-84 offers important improvements to that outdated piece of legislation, intending to streamline and reduce delays in the process by which regulations are made at the federal level in Canada.

The legislative reform is an important part of the regulatory reform, part of the innovative economy initiative of my colleague, the Minister of Industry. This legislation is intended to support the bold, innovative, imaginative measures he is taking to strengthen Canada's economy.

There can be no doubt about the need for change in the process by which regulations are made. Problems are created by the current regulatory process. They have been identified many times in the past. There have been repeated calls for legislative improvements, most recently during the government-wide regulatory reviews of 1992-93.

Permit me to touch on some of the key elements of this bill. First, it is intended to provide a simpler and more principled definition of what a regulation is in modern government so that the scope of the act will be more clearly understood, so that its application will be more readily determined.

Second, an effort has been made in drafting Bill C-84 to use plainer language, to more directly communicate its meaning to those persons who use it and who invoke the process.

Third, the statute divides regulatory documents into different categories and provides for different kinds of review, depending upon what category a document falls into.

Fourth, it provides for a revised exemption power that will now be subject to an express public interest consideration.

Fifth, Bill C-84 codifies and I believe clarifies the law by expressly authorizing incorporation by reference, whether on international or other standards that are intended to be included in Canadian regulations, always subject to an express requirement that whatever is incorporated by reference should be made readily

accessible to members of the public or any other interested party who wishes to have them.

Sixth, Bill C-84 contemplates a modernized process allowing for the creation of an electronic registry of regulations while at the same time maintaining government accountability for regulations through parliamentary scrutiny.

We know that in order to reform the Statutory Instruments Act, a balance must be struck between the interests of the various stakeholders. The new legislation is to streamline and expedite the making of regulations. Yet, this will be done without overlooking the requirement for advance notification, public representations and a thorough parliamentary scrutiny of any related mandatory legislation.

That is why I believe it is important to note that the changes sought by the Regulations Act are, for the most part, material amendments that leave the essence of the current process unchanged. These amendments are designed to remove ambiguities, simplify steps as required and generally modernize the regulatory process.

But first and foremost the purpose of the new Regulations Act is to maintain and strengthen the objectives and basic principles of the Statutory Instruments Act, which contains the legal safeguards required to make binding regulations. These objectives include the rule of law, transparency, the publication of regulations and the monitoring of the executive by Parliament as part of its legislative power.

While the Statutory Instruments Act has generally served Canadians well over the last two decades, over time the regulatory process has come to be viewed both inside and beyond government as an impediment to the timely and efficient making and repeal of federal regulations. The current operation of the Statutory Instruments Act makes it difficult for federal regulators to respond in a timely manner to changing needs with new and improved regulations because the regulatory process is too cumbersome and time consuming. This is of concern to all Canadians, particularly Canadian business because these regimes are not well tailored to evolving circumstances.

Unnecessary delays in modernizing and improving regulatory schemes can also reduce our ability to respond quickly and effectively to new developments in areas such as health and safety, environmental regulation, international trade or federal-provincial relations. Outdated and inappropriate regulatory schemes can also undermine respect for the law, economic growth and competitiveness. They can also complicate the working relationship between the government and the private sector.

We believe that the new act will improve the capacity of government to respond quickly and effectively to changing circumstances, reduce the overall volume of regulations and provide for an expedited process. It will allow us to incorporate important documents by reference. It will do all of that without reducing the role of Parliament in overseeing government as it makes subordinate law.

In moving today that this proposed statute now go to committee for consideration, I express the government's conviction that it represents a significant improvement in Canadian law. I know it will receive the usual balanced and insightful commentary from my colleagues in other parties. I look forward enthusiastically to my own involvement in that important process.

Gun Control October 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, may I first of all acknowledge the hon. member's interest in the whole area of gun amnesty. I am grateful to him for his focus on that subject.

The government is fully aware of the value a gun amnesty can provide. Unused guns for which people no longer have a purpose and indeed illegal guns could be turned in without consequence and without questions being asked. An amnesty can only make communities safer.

I can tell the hon. member that the government is considering an amnesty coincidental with the proclamation of Bill C-68 when that occurs.

Once again I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this point again.

International Criminal Court September 29th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the government does support that proposal enthusiastically. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Department of Justice have been active participants in an ad hoc committee of the United Nations which has been working since last year on this proposal. That committee will report this fall to the United Nations Security Council.

I can tell the hon. member because I know of his particular interest in this subject that the international community is making real progress toward a permanent international criminal court to deal with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If I may add one word, at the moment there is temporarily such a tribunal headquartered in The Hague. Its purpose is to deal with those crimes against humanity allegedly arising from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

I can report to the House about something of which we should all be very proud. Two days ago I met with the chief prosecutor, Mr. Justice Richard Goldstone of the South African Constitutional Court, who reported that Canada is contributing enormously in legal talent, especially in the Rwandan cases. We should be very proud of the contribution we are making in that international effort.

Government Policies September 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, apparently we have touched a nerve.

The reason the government continues to enjoy the widespread support of Canadians is that we are performing as we said we would. We are fulfilling our red book commitments and we have every intention of continuing to do exactly that.

Government Policies September 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is timely for us to observe that yesterday when the kissing cousins of the third party, the Conservative Party of Ontario, opened the session of Parliament there was a riot involving 5,000 people outside the legislature.

I very much hope the hon. member is not advocating that approach to public relations in government.

Justice September 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the first and most fundamental right of any victim is the same as the first and most fundamental right of any Canadian, to a fair, responsive and strong system of criminal justice. Since our first day in office that has been our focus.

Before concluding, I am constrained to observe that for a party so consumed with the rights of victims it is passing strange that it turns a deaf ear when the victims rights groups, including CAVEAT and its principal, Priscilla de Villiers, speak passionately and call for the Reform Party to support our proposals on gun control.

Justice September 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my list was not of things we are talking about. My list was of measures that have already been achieved.

Instead of just speaking about a list of victims rights, which is something the third party is fond of doing, instead of just proclaiming a bill of rights for victims which is politically attractive, we prefer to enact those rights as we have done.

If the leader of the third party does not know, let me tell him that what has been done has been to amend the Criminal Code to provide for victim impact statements wherever they are prepared; to allow for the return of stolen property; to protect the identity of victims and witnesses of sexual offences and extortion; to levy victims fine surcharges; to amend the code to permit the courts to order restitution to victims; and to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to recognize the role of victims in relation to federal corrections. This is the list of action taken in the name of victims.

Justice September 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it was my high privilege to address that rally on the lawn of Parliament Hill an hour or two ago. It was my honour to meet yesterday morning with Steve Carpenter, the father of Melanie, and with Maurice Rose whose son was murdered in Montreal.

As I told those gathered on Parliament Hill today, since I have been Minister of Justice I have made it a point to meet with victims and the families of victims of crime, not because it is easy-it is often terribly difficult-but because I believe that through the tragedy they have suffered they have something to offer. They have a perspective to offer on criminal justice reform which has helped me in my work.

When I spoke to that group today I recounted some of the things the government has done over the last 15 months. We have introduced more meaningful reform to the criminal justice system than any federal government in memory.

The leader of the third party and his colleagues want to know what has been done. Let me remind the leader of the third party what has been done often over the objection and with the opposition of the third party: meaningful amendments to the Young Offenders Act, introducing DNA provisions under the Criminal

Code, meaningful gun control, improvements to the parole system, strengthening the criminal justice sentencing process, and ruling out self-induced intoxication.

Victims Of Crime September 26th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. The preamble that preceded the hon. member's question is so filled with errors that time will not permit me to address them all.

The very purpose of the restitution provisions in Bill C-41 now passed by the House and which the hon. member opposed was to

permit the court to award restitution and the victims of crime to collect it without having to sue simply by registering the order.

If the hon. member had a genuine interest in the victims of crime then he would join with CAVEAT and victims groups across the country that are calling for him to support gun control.

Victims Of Crime September 26th, 1995

No. The attention of the hon. member was focused on two words in one subsection of a 70-page bill. If he had read the bill in its entirety he would have seen that Bill C-41, which has now been enacted by the House of Commons, provides in a very meaningful way for the restitution of victims of crime through the criminal justice system in ways that are innovative and will be effective. That is the response of the government toward victims of crime.