David Christopherson

[Committees of the House, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study of chapter 6, Special Examinations of Crown Corporations—2011, of the spring 2012 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study “Public Accounts of Canada, 2012”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Ethics, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, also in October 2005, the Prime Minister said, “Why does the Prime Minister not just say no to David Dingwall's demand for more money?”

My question is very simple. Why will the Prime Minister not just say “no” to any money being paid out to his former chief of staff?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in October 2005, the current Prime Minister asked the Liberal government of the day about the severance package for David Dingwall. He said, “not a single expert has come forward to say that there is an entitlement to severance when one quits a job”.

What made the Prime Minister change his mind?

[Committees of the House, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study of the main estimates 2013-14: vote 20, under finance.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question, similar to the one from the member for Western Arctic.

I do not know the answer to the questions. That is why it needs to go to committee. They are very good questions.

I do not think we need to be lawyers to understand what is in front of us here. These are laws, Canadian regulations, which have the effect of law, that automatically get changed by virtue of another document generating another law, generated in another country or from a multilateral agreement. Changes within that agreement automatically make changes in our regulations.

I guarantee that if we put that kind of scenario in front of Canadians, they will tell us to make sure we know what we are doing and to make sure there are not laws being changed that are harmful to us or create huge mistakes. They will tell us to make sure we do our homework, answer those questions and give them good, regulatory law.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy question, I must say.

I think the question itself provides the answer. The fact is that I cannot answer the questions the hon. member is posing. What is the impact on the ability of our joint committee to continue to function in its current format and procedures? I do not know.

I do know that my colleague, who is the co-chair of the committee and who the hon. members across the way were complimenting in terms of the work that she does, has raised serious questions about what will happen to the issue of giving forgiveness to all these changes that have happened before.

I do not know the answer to that question, but I think that is exactly why we want to send it to committee and why we are saying we need to hear what happens at committee. We need to get the experts in to answer that very kind of question. I guarantee that the answers they give are going to pose a whole lot of other questions that need to be followed up and answered. We will need to do it so that the committee of the whole is satisfactorily comfortable that the scenario my hon. colleague is painting, where our current process is corrupting—and I use the word advisedly, although it is a bad word to use in the current climate—or not working, is failing us in terms of how well it worked before.

These are all very valid questions. I wish I could answer the hon. member, but I cannot. I do not believe that all of the members on the committee can, but they do know enough about what is going on to pose questions like the ones the member for Western Arctic is raising, along with many other questions. That is why we feel it needs to go to committee.

Roll up the sleeves, look at it in detail and hopefully bring a bill back here, in which the questions are answered and we can feel comfortable to move ahead.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla for the question and I particularly thank him for the tone. Often we get into evening debates and things can get a little bit sharp-edged around here and elbows could come up. I appreciate the tone and I appreciate the question.

I would first say to the hon. member that, when members are on the government side, they always suggest everything is non-partisan, and they often see it that way, but when members are on the opposition benches, they are not as quick to say it is non-partisan so it could only be good. I just offer up that different perspective.

I would also mention to him that the co-chair of the current committee, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain, of whom I am very proud, said in relation to the bill:

The Conservatives have used ambulatory incorporation by reference—

which goes along with the static and the reference to legal terms

—170 times since 2006. Bill S-12 is essentially designed to give the government legal cover after the fact for its prior and ongoing illegal activities. Put differently and more specifically, proposed section 18.7 would retroactively validate a large number of provisions that were made without lawful authority.

It seems to me, if nothing else, a question like this coming from one of the co-chairs deserves to be answered.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill S-12, from that other place.

It is interesting, and it needs to be said, that the bill is here because the Senate, of course, has the power to generate bills itself. A lot of people are looking at the scandal that is going on right now and are thinking that we have to get rid of all of that so we can go back to the way we were when the Senate did not really get involved in things. However, the reality is that for any bill, this one or any other, to become law, it has to pass this place and it also has to pass through that place.

Given there are fewer seats in that place than there are in this place, the relative weight of a vote is worth more in the unelected, unaccountable Senate than it is in the elected, accountable House of Commons. Therefore, this is serious. The crisis is not just the scandal, it is the state of our democracy where we give equal if not greater authority under our Constitution to a body that has no moral, ethical or democratic legitimacy. That needs to be said every time we are dealing with the Senate of Canada.

It is not just the horrific headlines and scandals that we are seeing. It is the scandal that unelected people can vote on our laws, have to vote on our laws, and their weight is worth more than those of us on both sides of the House who are going to have to go back to our constituents and knock on doors to say, “I'm here to be accountable”. We will never hear a senator say, “I'm here to be accountable”. However, we have to live where we are now,

I recognize that my colleague for Winnipeg North took a different approach. It would have been nice to hear him say that he wished the Senate was abolished too so at least we would all be on the same starting page rather than just finding a nice way to avoid taking a position. Yes, the NDP is the only party that has taken a clear position to abolish the Senate. Of course, it is easier for us because we do not have the baggage of appointed senators leaning on our shoulders and whispering in our ears “don't hurt me”.

Our position remains clear. I think a growing number of Canadians are beginning to believe and understand that, as not a single province has a Senate left, we do not have to have a Senate. It is a choice of whether we want one or not. For 35 million people, give or take, there is a good argument that we do not need to duplicate the House of Commons.

When I was at Queen's Park in the legislative assembly, if there was a mistake made, just like when I was on city council, we brought in another bill to correct the mistake. It happens. The Senate is no guarantee that there are no mistakes or we would have a perfect country.

However, we are dealing with this bill now, which is actually very detailed and complex in terms of some of the references, especially for those of us who are not lawyers. We are all lawmakers, but we are not all lawyers, and we do not need to be.

One of the most important things that happens at the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is that there are elected people as well as very professional well-trained staff there to give advice, and so one does not have to be a lawyer. Sometimes, every now and then we get lawyers, and because they are lawyers, they then believe that their opinion, of course, is as good as any other lawyer and they engage in that debate. Whereas us mere mortals who are not lawyers will want to hear all the legal arguments as we do not have a vested interest in the outcome other than the best law that we can have. Having said that, there is certainly nothing strange about having lawyers become lawmakers, but a good mix is best.

My other experience with regulations is in two areas.

First, as a former provincial minister, I dealt with regulations. In the briefings with the legal department and policy people, I dealt with the essence of what was there. One does not debate as a minister, unless one is a lawyer. I certainly did not engage in a debate about what language should be in the bill when it came to a technical term, especially for a legal process. However, I would always pay attention if there were other learned people who felt differently, because it is my judgment my constituents elected me to bring here, not my skills as someone who necessarily can sit down with a blank piece of paper and write a law.

The other experience I had is that I am one of those lucky MPs in this place who was not only able to sit on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations but was a vice-chair. Yes, people do not hear me reference it a lot. There is not much I can pull from that experience in speeches. I think that is the first time in 10 years I have been able to use it.

It was a fascinating committee. Again, if someone is a lawyer who is excited by lawyer things, the more that person will be excited at these meetings. It is great to see the professionalism when people care that much about where a comma goes or whether something should be a subclause of this or that. It is great, because it shows a part of law-making that Canadians do not see when they turn on the TV, yet it is crucial, particularly when there is an opportunity to travel to other countries that are not as strong as we are economically or democratically. Believe me, many of them would give their right arms to have a committee anything like this so that the kind of detail they want in their law-making and regulations is there. They envy us. I did not always feel that I was in an enviable position when I was sitting on the committee, but when we look at it in a bigger context, we are indeed very fortunate.

As my other colleagues have mentioned, much of its work is to ensure, from a legal point of view, that the English and French texts say the same thing. All of us here, unilingual or bilingual, know that there can be huge differences in meaning with just one or two words or a phrase. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how amplified that is when we are talking about legal documents such as regulations.

Of course, in recent times, we have had other languages brought into play because of the issue of incorporation by reference. There are languages other than French and English that will find a way into our laws. There needs to be translation. It is hard to believe that there would not be some confusion and problems going from another language to French and English such as we have going from French to English and back and forth. Therefore, there are some serious issues here to be dealt with.

There were matters that came before that committee that were decades old in their lack of resolution. Mr. Speaker, I see you nodding your head. I assume that you have been on the committee. You know that sometimes there will be an issue that in 10 years has not been resolved. However, by the end of the meeting, the committee will have dealt with something that is 22 years old. It is amazing. From a practical point of view, we wonder how on earth it could be so important that we are still dealing with it but not so important that it had to be resolved 22 years ago. That is part of the excitement for those who are in the law. I see the Speaker, who is a lawyer, smiling but shaking his head no, so I am not sure what trouble I am in. I will plough ahead nonetheless.

The work is not exactly headline-making, but it really is important. I will go so far as to say that since we have to live with that other place, it allows us the ability, through a joint committee, to bring out any synergies that are there. That deserves to be said.

There is one more thing I want to mention before I get to the specifics of the bill. There is another area where regulations, in my opinion, should be on the radar of most Canadians in terms of understanding how this place works and how laws are really made.

I watched for many years how former Ontario premier Mike Harris would take many things that were already in legislation.

As members know, legislation can only be amended by Parliament. Regulations, on the other hand, do not require Parliament. That is at the core of what we are dealing with here. It is these automatic changes that come from referencing other agreements outside of Canada, such as international agreements or national agreements from other countries, where there is a reference in our regulations. As they make changes, those changes come in and are automatically updated. At least that is my understanding of one of the key issues in Bill S-12.

What we went through in Ontario is worth mentioning, because it was very scary. Many times, but not every time, when that Conservative government was amending legislation, it would often take things out of the legislation and put them in the regulations.

For instance, if there is a law that says that the Government of Ontario, or any province, has the right to set speed limits on highways, those speed limits will be set by regulation so that the law itself does not list every single highway in the province. The government would not have to go back and make a legislative change, with first reading, second reading, third reading, and in this case, all the way over to the Senate. In Queen's Park we did not have that problem. We dealt with it, as elected people, ourselves.

The regulations would then go to cabinet. They could modify or set a speed limit on a highway. That is how legislation and regulations are used in a healthy, democratic way. The principles are set out, and then on some of the details that are going to be different all over, regulations deal with them. There is still a procedure. It still involves the cabinet and the government, but it is a lot quicker and the whole House is not tied up changing one area of Highway 401 to lower the speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour. That makes sense.

However, and I am using this hypothetically, the government would then state that all laws pertaining to the highway that are under the constitutional jurisdiction of the province shall be dealt with by regulation. That sounds like a small change, but it is huge. It goes from having the right to change speeds without debate and to inform cabinet afterwards to doing anything on those highways, as long as there is constitutional jurisdiction. It never has to come to the House. That is not healthy. That is not a strong democracy.

Again, we are into areas here that sound very dry, but they matter. It is our job, of course, as the elected people, to roll up our sleeves and do this work.

We in the official opposition are comfortable enough with some of the goals set out to allow this to go to committee. However, at committee, there needs to be a great deal more scrutiny of this bill. We are hoping that this is exactly what will happen.

If I might, I would just mention this quote. It can never be said enough. It comes from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. They dealt with this issue in 2007.

Of course, incorporation by reference also gives rise to concerns relating to accessibility to the law, in that although incorporated material becomes part of the regulations, the actual text of that material must be found elsewhere. Such concerns are heightened where material is incorporated “as amended from time to time”, in that members of the public may have difficulty ascertaining precisely what the current version is at a particular point in time. Where open incorporation by reference is to be permitted, provisions should also be put in place to require the regulation-maker to ensure that the current version of an incorporated document is readily available to the public, as are all previous versions that were previously incorporated.

I believe it was a colleague from my caucus who made this point. Given the fact there are going to be these changes to other pieces of legislation, how would one who looks at the regulations know that they are not in the midst of being changed? How much guarantee would they have that the language they are looking at is the law that would be applied to them? In Canada, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Again, this is not something I likely would have thought of, because I would not necessarily, as a rule, be the one to research the original documentation. If we were at committee, there would be staff doing it. Even if we were in our offices, we would ask our staff if we needed that level of detail. It is also not something I would raise as an issue, because I do not use it every day in this way.

Once it is spelled out and brought to the attention of any reasonable Canadian, we would understand that this committee not only had members of the government and opposition but had members from both places. I am assuming that it was unanimous and was supported by the entire committee. That is an assumption on my part. It had to matter, otherwise the politics of the day would have kicked in and there would not have been agreement.

I will tell members that there are a lot of very professional staff there. It is amazing to see the calibre of people who are in the room at these meetings. It is truly impressive. We are all very fortunate to have public servants with this capacity. It is obviously the staff who are usually the ones to recommend this kind of language. This matters. This matters from a practical point of view, which is what I can apply from my experience as a law-maker. What I am hearing loud and clear from people who understand this from a legal point of view and from a detailed policy point of view is that this matters.

I heard some reference to international business investment. Contrary to what the government likes to pretend, we care about those things. I believe that everyone in this House does, because it means jobs for our citizens, our constituents. These things need to be looked at.

We cannot really go into that level of detail here in the House. That is why we have a committee system.

Our position today as the official opposition is that we are prepared to give enough support to send it to committee. However, we will reserve judgment on that point, because we never know how it is going to go.

I would wrap up by saying that this is one of those times when things that seem not to be important, because they do not make headlines, really are. I am hopeful that we will see it sent to committee so that the kind of work that needs to be done on this important bill can be done and it can be brought back here for our final debate and determination as to whether we want to make it a law.

[Ethics, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, answers like that are classic non-denial denials, just like the non-denial denial from the Prime Minister's former lawyer, Mr. Perrin.

He says that he did not know about the cheque being sent, but was silent on whether he knew about the deal being negotiated. He did not say whether he played a role in implementing the decision that led to the cover-up.

Let us keep this one simple. Were any lawyers in the PMO aware of what Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy were cooking up?