15255 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 234 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, June 18, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 18, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 234 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 234 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 234 (Version officielle) 147 234 18 06 2015 2015/06/18 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Public Sector Integrity Commissioner The Speaker : I have the honour, pursuant to

section 48 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, to lay upon the table the report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. This report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. [ Translation ] The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2014-15 annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act from the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. These documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to six petitions.

Canada-Quebec Gulf of St. Lawrence Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act Hon. Christian Paradis (for the Minister of Natural Resources) Bill C-74. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-74,

An Act to implement the accord between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec for the joint management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of reports to table today. Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to this House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association respecting its election observation mission to Exeter, Glasgow East, Watford, and Wirral West, United Kingdom, from May 2 to 10, 2015.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I also have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association regarding its participation at the workshop on parliamentary codes of conduct, held in Melbourne, Australia, from April 8 to 10, 2015. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of: the Canadian delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 60th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, The Hague, Netherlands, November 21 to 24, 2014; the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum in Washington, D.C., United States of America, December 8 to 9, 2014; the joint meeting of the defence and security, economics and security, and political committees and officers of the committee on the civil dimensions of security and the science and technology committee, in Brussels, Belgium, February 14 to 16, 2015; and the meeting of the standing committee in London, United Kingdom, March 20 to 21, 2015.

Committees of the House Foreign Affairs and International Development Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled “North America: Giving the Continent the Attention it Deserves”, and the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled “Beyond Survival: Protecting and Empowering Children and Youth”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive report in response to both of these reports. While I have the floor, I just want to mention on behalf of our committee the great, non-partisan work that the clerks and the researchers do. They work late as we get close to the end of the session here. I want to recognize Caroline Massicotte, Joann Garbig, Allison Goody, and Brian Hermon, for the outstanding work they have done all year in our committee. I want to wish them well as we move forward into next year.

Public Accounts Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled, “Chapter 4, Access to Health Services for Remote First Nations Communities, of the Spring 2015 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. I also extend thanks to all the members of the committee, all the staff, and the Auditor General, who does an amazing job for us.

Natural Resources Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources entitled “The Transformation of Canada's Forest Sector”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. I want to thank all current members of the committee and past members for the great co-operation and hard work on this committee.

Over the eight years I have chaired the committee, it has been a very well functioning committee, and I am certainly very appreciative of that. I also want to thank all of the staff, because they have done great work over the years. I want to wish all of my colleagues in the House all the best in the years ahead. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I have the honour to present the official opposition's supplementary opinion on the future of forestry.

Over the course of 10 or 11 very full meetings, we heard some high-quality testimony that showed us how important the forestry industry is and shed light on the obstacles the industry will have to overcome to achieve greater success. Although the report does reflect the quality of the testimony, I have to say that we were disappointed in the committee's recommendations. The testimony is included in the report; that is why we supported it. However, in response to that testimony, we are pleased to present 39 official opposition recommendations about the future of forestry.

I will close by wishing the committee chair, the member for Vegreville—Wainwright , all the best because he will not be running again. The committee was run well and functioned very efficiently. I would like to thank him for his work and wish him good luck in his retirement.

(1010) Finance Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, entitled “Terrorist Financing in Canada and Abroad: Needed Federal Actions”. [ English ] Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. As this is the last report I will present to this House, I want to thank all present and past members for their outstanding work and their collaboration with me in operating this committee since 2008.

I want to thank our analysts, Adriane Yong in this report, and especially Mark Mahabir, who has been with us the same amount of time and done an outstanding job. June Dewetering, whom many of us know in this House, has done just an outstanding job as well over the years. [ Translation ] I would also like to thank our clerk, Christine Lafrance. [ English ] She insisted I use my French here today. I want to thank her for her outstanding work as well.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to the study of a continuum of transition services. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. [ English ] I, too, would like to thank all the members of the committee for their thorough and non-partisan work.

I particularly want to signal the work of the hon. members for Edmonton Centre and Guelph , who are not only leaving the committee but leaving this House. I want to thank them for their wisdom and for their passion for this issue. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for the grace he has shown me in chairing the meetings.

Public Access to Science Act Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) , Bill C-699. Introduction and first reading seconded by Mr. Rathgeber, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-699,

An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (scientific research) . She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour. I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert for seconding the bill. This is a bill that deals with an issue that has been very much of concern to Canadians, that scientific research conducted within the Government of Canada has not been as accessible as it used to be. The act to amend the Access to Information Act for scientific research, the

short title of which will be the public access to science act, references that access and the pursuit of scientific knowledge and information is a pillar of a healthy democracy, that public policy, as developed within this house and throughout the Government of Canada must rest on evidence, and that evidence comes through scientific research. The effect of the bill would be very straightforward. With the passage of the bill, all publicly funded science in Canada must be made public, must be made public expeditiously, and must be accessible to all Canadians. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1015) [ Translation ] National Perinatal Bereavement Awareness Day Act Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) Bill C-700. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-700,

An Act to Establish National Perinatal Bereavement Awareness Day . She said: Mr. Speaker, every year, thousands of families are affected by perinatal bereavement. This kind of loss is considered one of the hardest things anyone could ever go through in their adult life, and it can cause physical and psychological suffering for the parents and the extended family. These parents often isolate themselves, since it is such a difficult experience to go through. I therefore ask my fellow parliamentarians to recognize the importance of raising awareness about perinatal bereavement.

That is why I want October 15 to be declared national perinatal bereavement awareness day. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 39th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on Thursday, June 11, be concurred in. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today and hope for unanimous consent to table only those portions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report that have been fully translated into both official languages. This includes calls to action and the testimony of survivors.

We have had the important work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission accepted at Rideau Hall by the Governor General; and in this place seven years ago, the Prime Minister made a really significant and historically meaningful apology for the residential school legacy. It is an important move, as we close this Parliament, to accept those portions of the report that have been fully translated so that the matter of truth and reconciliation is taken up in the House of Commons, accepting the documents, though not necessarily endorsing the recommendations. I ask for unanimous consent.

The Deputy Speaker : Does the member have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Petitions Citizenship and Immigration Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present this morning. Two of them are asking Citizenship and Immigration Canada to expedite the recognition of Seyamak Naderi as a convention refugee. In the third petition, petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to assist the current humanitarian crisis by accepting a group of Rohingya people as government-assisted refugees.

[ Translation ] Health Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by dozens of people in my riding from Alban, Sturgeon Falls, Garson and Blezard Valley. They are calling on the Government of Canada to work actively with the Province of Ontario to maintain and strengthen the public health care system for northerners, specifically through the following measures: investments in better long-term and palliative home care programs in northern Ontario and the creation of a mental health and suicide prevention strategy.

(1020) [ English ] Air Transportation Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition is signed by hundreds of residents in my riding regarding the proposal to expand and put jets at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The Liberal Party and others are committed not to reopen the tripartite agreement that governs that airport, and in doing so, we protect the waterfront. Therefore, the petition compels the House to act on that position.

Housing Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on an equally important issue in the city of Toronto, which is the expiration of the social housing agreements with CMHC, particularly around co-op housing. Hundreds of residents of the communities surrounding these wonderful places to live have signed a petition asking the government not to allow those agreements to expire and to protect public housing as the housing crisis in this country deepens, as we work towards resurrecting a national housing program. I submit these petitions on behalf of the residents of Trinity—Spadina.

[ Translation ] Mining Industry Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by people from my riding who are calling for the creation of an ombudsman position that will really have some authority when it comes to Canadian mining companies operating abroad. This problem is tarnishing the image that many people have of Canada. Fixing this situation would be the right thing to do.

[ English ] Violence Against Women Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by many incredible women, strong feminists from Newfoundland, who are calling on the government to enact a national action plan to end violence against women. The petitioners are showing their support for a motion that I put forward, Motion No. 444. They do not want to stop at the defeat of that motion, but push for action to end violence against women in Canada today.

The Environment Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today I present six petitions regarding our most pressing environmental issue and perhaps the defining issue of our generation: climate change. One petition deals with the science of climate change and five others deal with a few of the projected impacts of climate change, including economic impacts, extreme weather events and rising food prices. The petitioners call upon the government to accept the science of climate change, adopt a comprehensive climate change plan and help Canadians adapt. Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy summer to everybody.

Tobacco Products Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition demanding that Parliament pass legislation to remove all flavours from all tobacco products since they are marketed to youth and create addiction.

Defence of Canada Medal Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table two petitions. The first petition is regarding the creation of the defence of Canada medal. As members know, many men and women gave countless hours of service to their country as they trained and prepared for an attack on Canadian soil during the Cold War era. The petitioners recognize that these individuals who served in the regular and reserve forces, police forces, emergency measures organizations and civil organizations worked to protect Canada.

The petitioners are asking that the House support Bill C-354 , which would create a defence of Canada medal in honour of these veterans of the Cold War.

Algoma Central Railway Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition pertains to the Algoma Central Railway. These petitioners signed the petition before the government finally came to its senses and provided the additional dollars that were needed to keep the ACR going. I know there is still some concern about that, and therefore, this petition is still relevant as we need to make sure that the ACR is protected in the long run.

Human Rights Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present three separate petitions today. The first is a petition on behalf of Canadians who are calling on the Government of Canada and members of Parliament to take note of the human rights violations perpetrated in Venezuela by the government of President Nicolás Maduro, including the criminalization of dissent, the shuttering of independent media and the imprisonment of opposition leaders.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to further study the human rights situation in Venezuela, including a mission to conduct first-hand evaluations of the situation there. This is a particularly timely petition as opposition leader Leopoldo López and former San Cristobal mayor Daniel Ceballos have embarked upon a hunger strike to protest their imprisonment and that of other opponents of the regime.

(1025) Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of Canadians who wish the government to apologize to Dr. David Shugar for the human and civil rights violations he suffered, including serious damage to his reputation and loss of employment as a result of false accusations that he was a Communist spy in 1946. The petitioners call on the government to submit a letter of apology to Dr.

Shugar who, as a result of these civil rights abuses, and despite being exonerated of all the accusations against him, was summarily dismissed from his position with the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, unable to secure employment and forced to emigrate to Poland where he resides today. He is close to 100 years of age.

Citizenship and Immigration Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by Canadians who are concerned about the situation of Seyamak Naderi, an Iranian citizen and former political prisoner and resident of camps Ashraf and Liberty, currently living as a refugee claimant in Albania and who is in urgent need of medical care. The petitioners are concerned about the grave dangers he would suffer if returned to his native Iran.

His sister Saeideh, the only member of his family who can provide the needed ongoing care that he requires, is a Canadian citizen seeking his reunification with her here in Canada. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to do everything in their power to expedite the recognition of Seyamak Naderi as a refugee and reunite him with his sister here in Canada as soon as possible.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents. They are very concerned about the quality of transportation in our region. They are calling specifically for the return of VIA Rail service, which would make our region far less isolated. There is no doubt that our region is quite remote.

[ English ] The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions, all of which are from constituents within Saanich—Gulf Islands. The first petition calls for an aggressive climate strategy. The petitioners have set out the goals that were once accepted in a piece of legislation passed under the name of my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North , calling for a reduction by 2050 of 80% of carbon dioxide levels below those of 1990. The second petition, Mr.

Speaker, calls upon the Government of Canada to act on the issue of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The petitioners compel the oil and gas companies to disclose all the chemicals that they are currently using and to conduct a comprehensive environmental review, among other measures.

Assisted Suicide Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the last petition is very timely given that the Supreme Court of Canada has given one year's notice to deal with the issue of end-of-life decisions. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to respect the will of Canadians and enact legislation with clear guidelines to physicians to allow competent, fully informed and terminally ill patients the option of physician-assisted death.

Canada Post Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to table yet another petition regarding the devastating cuts to service and the huge price increases at Canada Post. I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of concerned Canadians in St. Catharines, Ontario, who are suffering the effects of these changes. I look forward to the government's response.

Agriculture Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today. The first is in support of a pan-Canadian food strategy. The signatories point out that Canada is notable among its industrialized comparators in its absence of a comprehensive food policy. The signatories to this petition call upon the Government of Canada to implement a pan-Canadian food strategy to support farmers, improve access to healthy and local food, and to market Canadian food at home and abroad.

Natural Resources Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the federal lands in Durham region. The signatories to this petition point out that the federal lands in Durham region encompass class 1 Ontario greenbelt farmland and the vital watersheds of the Oak Ridges Moraine, but that this land is designated for an airport and economic development and not agriculture.

The signatories call on the House of Commons to rescind all plans for an airport and non-agricultural uses on the federal lands in Durham region and to act instead to preserve the watersheds and the agricultural land of this irreplaceable natural resource for the long-term benefit of all Canadians.

(1030) [ Translation ] Burundi Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by Canadians from across Quebec and Ontario who are calling on the Government of Canada to pressure the Government of Burundi to comply with its constitution, end the violence and abide by the Arusha accord of 2000, which prohibits the president from seeking a third term. The violence is due to the fact that the president is doing just that.

The petitioners are also calling on the Government of Canada to temporarily suspend financial aid to Burundi until a legitimate election is held and to suspend the deportation of Burundian citizens to Burundi so as not to expose them to the violence. However, I must obtain the unanimous consent of the House because this petition was not certified. I am therefore seeking unanimous consent to table this petition. The Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of Parliament to table the petition? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ English ] Canada Post Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's decision to allow Canada Post to end door-to-door delivery has upset a great number of Canadians. As such, Canadians from every region of the country have been signing petitions. I present yet another petition in opposition to the ending of door-to-door mail delivery. People are upset with the number of people who will be fired from Canada Post and with the increase in postal rates. The petitioners are calling on the government to restore door-to-door delivery and to cut out the hidden agenda against Canada Post. They believe the Government of Canada should support Canada Post.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved that Bill S-2,

An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations , be read the third time and passed. Bill S-2. Third reading Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak about Bill S-2 , the incorporation by reference in regulations act. Yes, this is riveting. While it may not be the subject of headlines, it is actually very important. Bill S-2 has been studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and has been reported without amendment back to the House.

Before that, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also reported the bill, without amendment, to the House for consideration. This bill deals with a regulatory drafting technique. Essentially, the bill clarifies when federal regulators can or cannot use the technique of incorporation by reference. The technique of incorporation by reference is currently used in a wide range of federal regulations. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a regulated area in which incorporation by reference is not used to some degree.

Bill S-2 is about securing the government's access to a drafting technique that has already become essential to the way governments regulate. It is also about leading the way internationally in the modernization of regulations. However, more directly, Bill S-2 responds to concerns expressed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations about when incorporation by reference can be used. This bill would create the legal clarification that is needed so that regulators and the committee can ensure that there is no uncertainty in the process of incorporation by reference.

Incorporation by reference has already become an essential tool that is widely relied upon to achieve the objectives of the government. Both committees have heard that it is also an effective way to achieve many of the current goals of the cabinet directive on regulatory management, which are cabinet's instructions on how to ensure effective and responsive regulations. For example, regulations that use this technique are effective in facilitating intergovernmental co-operation and harmonization, a key objective of the Regulatory Cooperation Council established by the Prime Minister and President Obama.

By incorporating the legislation of other jurisdictions with which harmonization is desired, or by incorporating standards developed internationally, regulations can minimize duplication. This is an important objective of the Red Tape Reduction Commission. The result of Bill S-2 would be that regulators would have the option of using this drafting technique in regulations aimed at achieving these objectives. Incorporation by reference is also an important tool for the government to help Canada comply with its international obligations.

Referencing material that is internationally accepted, rather than attempting to reproduce the same rules in the regulations, also reduces technical differences that create barriers to trade and is, in fact, something Canada is required to do under the World Trade Organization's Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. Incorporation by reference is also an effective way to take advantage of the use of the expertise of standards writing bodies in Canada. Canada has a national standards system that is recognized all over the world.

Incorporation of standards, whether developed in Canada or internationally, allows the best science and the most accepted approach in areas that affect people on a day-to-day basis to be used in regulations. Indeed, reliance on this expertise is essential to ensuring access to technical knowledge across the country and around the world. Testimony by witnesses from the Standards Council of Canada before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made it clear how Canada already relies extensively on international and national standards.

Ensuring that regulators continue to have the ability to use ambulatory incorporation by reference in their regulations, meaning the ability to incorporate by reference a document as it is amended from time to time rather than just in its fixed or static version, means that Canadians can be assured that they are protected by the most up-to-date technology. Incorporation by reference allows the expertise of the Canadian national standards system and the international standards system to form a meaningful part of the regulatory tool box.

Another important aspect of Bill S-2 is that it allows for the incorporation by reference of rates and indices, such as the Consumer Price Index or the Bank of Canada rates, which are important elements in many regulations. For these reasons and more, ambulatory incorporation by reference is an important instrument available to regulators when they are designing their regulatory initiatives. However, Bill S-2 also strikes an important balance in respect of what may be incorporated by reference by limiting the types of documents that can be incorporated when they are produced by the regulation maker.

Also, only the version of such documents as they exist on a particular day can be incorporated when the documents are produced by the regulation maker only. This is an important safeguard against circumvention of the regulatory process.

Although there was some testimony at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that suggested that the bill should go even further to allow more types of documents to be incorporated by reference, including documents produced by the regulation maker, we believe that Bill S-2 strikes the right balance, and where further authority is needed, Parliament can and has authorized incorporation by reference of additional material.

(1035) Parliament's ability to control the delegation of regulation-making powers continues, as does the oversight of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We expect that the standing joint committee will continue its work in respect of the scrutiny of regulations that use incorporation by reference. The standing joint committee will indeed play an important role in ensuring that the use of this technique continues to be exercised in a way that Parliament has authorized. One of the most important aspects of this bill relates to accessibility.

Bill S-2 would not only provide a solid legal basis for the use of this regulatory drafting technique but would also expressly impose in legislation an obligation on all regulators to ensure that the documents they incorporate are accessible. While this has always been something the common law required, this bill clearly enshrines this obligation in legislation. There is no doubt that accessibility should be part of this bill. It is essential that documents that are incorporated by reference be accessible to all those who are required to comply with them.

This is an important and significant step forward in this legislation. The general approach to accessibility found in Bill S-2 will provide flexibility to regulatory bodies to take whatever steps might be necessary to make sure that the diverse types of material from various sources are in fact accessible. In general, material that is incorporated by reference is already accessible. As a result, in some cases, no further action on the part of the regulation-making authority will be necessary. An example is provincial legislation, which is already generally accessible.

Federal regulations that incorporate provincial legislation will undoubtedly allow the regulator to meet the requirement to ensure that the material is accessible. Sometimes accessing the document through the standards organization itself will be appropriate. It will be clear that the proposed legislation will ensure that the regulated community will have access to the incorporated material, with a reasonable effort on their part. It is also important to note that standards organizations, such as the Canadian Standards Association, understand the need to provide access to incorporated standards.

By recognizing the changing landscape of the Internet, this bill creates a meaningful obligation for regulators to ensure accessibility while still allowing for innovation, flexibility, and creativity. Bill S-2 is intended to solidify the government's access to a regulatory drafting technique that is essential to modern and responsive regulation. It also recognizes the corresponding obligations regulators must meet when using this tool. The bill strikes an important balance that reflects the reality of modern regulation while ensuring that appropriate protections are enshrined in law.

No person can suffer a penalty or sanction if the relevant material is not accessible to them. This proposal is consistent with the position the government has long taken on the question of when regulations can and cannot use the technique of incorporation by reference. It will provide express legislative authority for the use of this technique in the future and will confirm the validity of existing regulations incorporating documents in a manner that is consistent with that authority.

We have many years of successful experience with the use ambulatory and static incorporation by reference in legislation at the federal level, and this knowledge will be useful in providing guidance in the future. To conclude, the enactment of this legislation is the logical and necessary next step to securing access in a responsible manner to incorporation by reference in regulations. I would invite all members to support this legislative proposal and recognize the important steps forward it contains. (1040) [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in his speech, the parliamentary secretary spoke a lot about accessibility. However, there are no guidelines in the bill that would help determine the definition of accessibility. I therefore have the following questions. First, in the parliamentary secretary's view, what would be the definition of an accessible document? Second, does he believe that a document that the department charges Canadians for is an accessible document or not? [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, the first point is that currently there is no requirement at all that documents incorporated by reference be accessible.

This bill is actually enshrining that in law for the first time. That is very important. With respect to accessibility, it really depends on what kind of information is being incorporated by reference. Obviously, some of this information is very technical and could go on for hundreds of thousands of pages. I am thinking of transport standards, aviation safety standards, and electrical standards as set out by the national standards organizations of Canada. In each case, I think the regulators, when they incorporate by reference, need to state where that would be.

I would imagine that in this day and age it is going to be on the Internet. It is going to be available in both official languages. When it is used in a regulation, they will indicate where it can be found. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we often hear that things can best be found in the details. When I think of Bill S-2 , I cannot help but look at this as a bill that provides a great deal of detail.

My question is with respect to the idea of international standards and the impact they have on different departments in terms of their responsibility to make sure that there are high standards. To what degree does Ottawa work with nations in dealing with trade agreements, as an example? To what degree has the Government of Canada worked with the EU or Ukraine, for example, to finalize agreements for which we would have regulations that would be more in sync?

(1045) Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada incorporates many international standards and laws of different states by reference in regulations. A really good example would be the North American Free Trade Agreement. To harmonize trade between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, there are many pieces of legislation and international standards that are incorporated by reference in the regulations to the North American Free Trade Agreement. He raises the question of the European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement. Those regulations are not yet drafted. That will come in time.

He also raises the question of a trade agreement with Ukraine, which is something our government is very interested in. I think it would be beneficial to both Canadians and the people of Ukraine. On international standards, such as air transport and safety regulations, Canada is most famously home to the International Civil Aviation Organization, in Montreal, which is a UN body that sets civil aviation safety standards. Those standards are incorporated by reference into Department of Transport regulations, which regulate air safety in Canada. Mr.

Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech and for his work as a parliamentary secretary. He does a fantastic job for this government and also for his riding. What I would like to ask him is actually further to what the previous member asked about: trade. I believe that Canadians are fair and practical people. We want to see Canadian businesses succeed, not just here in Canada but abroad.

I think many of those businesses would benefit by knowing that when we sign free trade agreements and see tariff-free access and see our services being able to go to those countries, and vice versa, there would not be gaps on the regulatory side. He mentioned international shipping issues and whatnot. Canadians know that, first, we can compete abroad, but if we do not have harmonization, those kinds of irritants will hinder Canadians from getting out and trading, and I think Bill S-2 would help set some guidelines for that. Would the member please further explain in terms of trade and harmonization? Mr.

Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, that is actually a very good question. In any trade agreement, access to thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of products is open through the agreement. If the legislation of both countries, or multiple countries, in that trade agreement is not harmonized in the way they regulate technology and the way they regulate food, for example, that could actually end up causing an unnecessary barrier to trade, a technical barrier to trade.

Incorporation by reference allows legislators in each country to incorporate each other's legislation, which means that all of those products that are meant to be traded without tariffs would be able to be done that way. [ Translation ] Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. It was already a concern to see the department legislate more and more by way of regulations without respecting the spirit of the law. It is said that all Canadians should know the law.

Here, we are talking about open incorporation by reference and laws that exist elsewhere. The members opposite talked about free trade agreements. That can change over time. If one day a ruling is needed on a case, which law will the ruling be based on? Where do we begin to assign fault to someone who did not obey the law if the law itself is not defined and it is always being added to and evolving? I find that the analysis of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is being ignored. I would like the member opposite to comment on that. [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr.

Speaker, I think the member will find that the legislation clearly states that all regulations are subject to the review of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Parliament authorizes, in any trade agreement, the harmonization and adoption by reference of legislation from another country, and then it is the job of the committee that she sits on and her colleagues on that committee to review those regulations and make sure that they are as intended by Parliament.

Of course, that can be reviewed from time to time, as regulations might change, but the purpose of trade agreements is to harmonize the agreement between Canada and the other country so that the business people in both countries can trade their goods and services without tariff to the benefit of consumers in both countries.

(1050) Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition trade critic, I am most interested in this discussion. There are some very good points being made on both sides of the House. Obviously, trading jurisdictions have a shared interest in making sure that goods and services can flow as freely as possible across borders. However, I am wondering about some of the difficulties that could come up in that regard. As an example, the United States allows hormones in its milk,

whereas Canada does not. When there are different sensitivities and sensibilities of populations over something that may involve public health or different views on things like that, there could be difficulty determining which jurisdiction is going to prevail in that regard. I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments on that type of issue and how he sees the ability of each country or jurisdiction to maintain democratic control over their standards. How does that play into the bill? Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no concern in that regard.

First of all, governments have been drafting legislation and regulation incorporating documents by reference from other countries for decades. There have been no guidelines on how it should be done. Now there will be. That is what Bill S-2 would do. Second, in situations such as the one the member describes, hormones in milk are not acceptable in Canada. It would be contrary to Canadian regulations. Parliament has oversight over that, so that would not change, and if there were a change in regulations in the other country's legislation, that would actually put the agreement out of sync.

It would not be harmonized in that case. As I said, Parliament can review it. The government, through the Department of International Trade, would review it, and it would also be reviewed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this extremely problematic bill. I will provide more details in my speech. This bill stems from the tabling of the 80th report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations in December 2007.

The committee found that: ...the incorporation by reference of external material into regulations “as amended from time to time” should, in the absence of clear authority, be seen to be [inappropriate and] illegal. In fact, the parliamentary secretary just confirmed that incorporation by reference is a long-standing practice in the departments. However, we have a report here that says that without a clear law to that effect, these incorporations should be considered inappropriate and illegal. I will read the last clause of the bill: 18.7 The validity of an incorporation by reference that conforms with

section 18.1 and that was made before the day on which that

section comes into force is confirmed. I will explain to those watching today—I know many people are—what this government has just done and what the parliamentary secretary has just confirmed to us. The parliamentary secretary just acknowledged that incorporation by reference is currently illegal, but now he is making it legal. Material was incorporated by reference without enabling power and without enabling legislation, which means that, unfortunately, we could have hundreds of thousands of incorporations by reference. I do not know exactly how many.

Thousands of incorporations by reference may have been done without legislative authority. That is a problem. One has to wonder what the purpose of such a bill is. We know that the Conservatives' budget contained a small provision—hidden in a large budget that is hundreds of pages long—that legalized an illegal act committed by the RCMP. Here, the Conservatives are legalizing incorporations by reference that the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations would consider inappropriate and unlawful. I have here the findings of the report.

The first thing that came to mind was the following question: how can we really vote for a bill that would make retroactive amendments to allow actions that were not allowed before Bill S-2 was passed? I would like to remind members that this bill has not yet passed. In accordance with this bill, incorporation by reference is unlawful and inappropriate right now. I would simply like to put that out there, and members will have to decide whether it is acceptable or not.

However, in my opinion and in the opinion of the NDP, this sort of retroactive amendment cannot be allowed without a law that allows regulations to be incorporated by reference. That is some of the background behind Bill S-2 . The government said that there was a problem because it did not have regulatory power so it was going to pass a law that would give it this regulatory power to incorporate regulations by reference. In his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said that this bill gives guidance and direction with regard to the various incorporation by reference mechanisms.

I would like to remind him that I asked this question to a number of witnesses who appeared before the the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(1055) These witnesses clearly told me that the bill unfortunately did not address their concerns and that it did not create rules and guidelines for making regulations and incorporations by reference. I have the minutes of the meeting. The witnesses clearly told me that Treasury Board and the government must adopt directives and guidelines as quickly as possible for making regulations and for incorporations by reference. There are currently none, and Bill S-2 does not change that. All it does is grant the general authority to make regulations by reference. It does not include directives or guidelines.

I will give a very quick overview of incorporation by reference. It is a technique for drafting laws or regulations that refer to another piece of legislation, in order to avoid having to recopy everything in the bills. I will concede that we save a lot of paper by doing this. This technique is used to incorporate legislative texts, for example, regulations, rates, texts from other jurisdictions—provincial or federal—or other legislative texts from other governments, meaning other states. There are two types of incorporation by reference.

There is static incorporation, which means that when a reference is made to a regulation, the reference is made to the regulation as it exists at the time the legislation is passed, without any amendments that are made in the future. There is also dynamic, or open, incorporation, which automatically incorporates changes to other incorporated regulations. This means that if we incorporate regulations from another country, like the United States—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice mentioned international trade—and that country amends its regulations, ours will also be changed.

Governments change and we have no way of knowing what kind of amendments a new government might make, but these amendments will automatically be made to Canadian laws. This means that these amendments will never be reviewed by parliamentarians. That is a problem. Canadians, who are supposed to know the law, and parliamentarians, who are supposed to study it, will not be able to do so. They will not necessarily be aware of all of the changes made to the hundreds of thousands of regulations pertaining to legislation in other countries.

In addition, incorporations by reference will not even have to be published in the Canada Gazette . That is a big problem because all of the government's regulations must be published in the Canada Gazette before coming into effect, to prevent abuses. The problem is that clause 18.4 states that the requirements in the Statutory Instruments Act for registration and publication of regulations do not apply to documents incorporated by reference. That means they do not have to be published in the Canada Gazette . The government is creating an exception.

Usually, as I said, all laws and regulations have to be published in the Canada Gazette . However, clause 18.4 confirms that documents incorporated by reference will not have to be published.

(1100) There is a double standard here. I can imagine what the Conservatives are thinking. They will say that this has already been published, but that is not the problem. Perhaps it has already been published as it stands, but it did not say that it would apply to another law or another regulation. The problem is not that the regulations have already been published. What matters is knowing that the application of the regulation to another regulation will never be published. How, then, is anyone supposed to know what anything applies to, if it is not published in the Canada Gazette ? That is very problematic.

If we cannot figure out what anything applies to, and it is not published in the Canada Gazette , what is the Conservatives' idea of accessibility? Do they think that everyone should just know how to find that information online? If so, I would remind them that the Canada Gazette website is usually where people look up which regulation applies to which law or which regulation by incorporation applies to which regulation. If it is not published in the Canada Gazette , then where? Will it be posted on the department's website?

If that is what they mean by accessibility criteria, then I hope there will be no fees involved because the Canada Gazette can be accessed for free. Will there be fees? Will it be translated in both official languages? In any case, I sincerely hope so because the United States is not subject to bilingualism requirements. If we incorporate U.S. regulations by reference, I hope that the government will ensure that these regulations are translated into French and English for all Canadians.

A letter sent by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations raises some concerns that I raised in committee and for which the government has not provided a response, unfortunately. Generally, ambulatory incorporation by reference of administrative documents produced internally by the federal government should not be allowed in federal regulations. Why not?

When documents are incorporated by reference by the regulatory authority itself, there is a risk of abuse and of creating a system where that authority has a free pass to incorporate by reference and make changes to the regulations without submitting the material for review by parliamentarians. That is very problematic. Several thousand regulations could be incorporated by reference every year, without parliamentarians being notified and without these regulations being subject to review by a parliamentary committee. I find that very problematic.

That shows that the Conservatives are not at all concerned about creating a parallel means of making regulations and opening the door to abuse by using incorporation by reference. Only when this is deemed to be essential should it be permitted, and that should be clearly indicated in the enabling legislation, not in Bill S-2 . This is general enabling legislation concerning the general authority to adopt measures by incorporation, not a specific power given to a department or departmental agency, for example. It is no big deal for the Conservatives.

They will just pass Bill S-2 and create a general power that applies to all departments and departmental agencies. That way, they will not have to include it in specific enabling legislation. That is what Bill S-2 does. For example, the bill talks about the power to incorporate by reference rates, numbers and indices established by, for example, a body other than the regulation-making authority. However, we do not know what body is being referred to. The bill refers to persons or bodies other than the regulation-making authority. Could that be public servants or peace officers? I do not know.

When we pass a law we generally want it to be clear. What is a person or body other than the regulation-making authority?

(1105) This came up a number of times in the debates on Bill S-2 in the Senate. It was said that the bill was not clear enough and that guidelines were necessary. Unfortunately Bill S-2 will not fix that because it does not include guidelines as to who can use this new power or who or what is considered a person or body other than the regulation-making authority. As I already said, this came up a number of times during the Senate's studies. Incorporation by reference of foreign legislation, as amended from time to time, is another problem.

Once again, in the report and in the letter sent to the minister, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations clearly stated that ambulatory incorporation by reference of foreign legislation should not generally be permitted. It goes on to explain that with ambulatory incorporation by reference of federal, provincial or foreign legislation, parliamentarians do not have the option of reviewing the amendments. I am not making this up. It was in a report and in a letter from the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

The committee provides some examples, such as the fact that Ontario, Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have all prohibited the incorporation by reference of foreign legislation. There are already some Commonwealth countries that say that foreign legislation should never be incorporated by reference, especially not as amended from time to time, because parliamentarians then do not have the opportunity to examine any amendments that may be made to the law. We cannot allow amendments to be incorporated into Canadian laws without debating them in the House of Commons.

That is clear. Any amendments to regulations must be put before the House. That is clear. That is how a parliament works. It is a legislature. The report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations also talks about how such power should not necessarily be exercised without guidelines. For example, the report indicates that the regulation-maker who drafts the actual text of the regulations or who decides to incorporate material by reference must act within the clear limits of the authority bestowed upon him by law.

The enactment of general provisions governing incorporation by reference could raise questions about whether those provisions constitute autonomous authority or whether they are subject to the conditions of the enabling legislation under which the regulation-maker makes a regulation by incorporating a document by reference. It says here in the report that the passage of Bill S-2 , which is a general authority for incorporation by reference, unfortunately may not meet the conditions and guidelines. Since no such conditions exist, that is a bit difficult.

However, that could mean that this does not meet the conditions of the enabling legislation that falls within the purview of a department or agency. That is very problematic. I think all members need to think about this before they allow hundreds of pages of regulations to evade parliamentary scrutiny. I am asking members to vote against this bill. (1110) [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, listening to my colleague from the justice committee, one would wonder if anyone in the New Democratic Party has ever read the North American Free Trade Agreement or any of the regulations thereto. If she had, she would know that for more than 20 years, these kinds of incorporation by reference have done this. Previously we had no guidelines for this. Now we have guidelines in Bill S-2 . If we had an NDP government, business would grind to a halt. This probably points out why the NDP is against every trade agreement in the world. Business could not be done if Parliament had to review every regulation.

She knows that is not how it is done. The bill would put some parameters, control and basic guidelines around what has been done in Canada, in the provinces and in every major nation in the world for decades. The member would know that in any trade agreement, there are dispute resolution mechanisms. What does she think the civil servants of Canada do, the public servants at International Trade and Foreign Affairs or the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transport.

They review those regulations and the regulations of other countries, and ensure they fit within the laws of Canada and the authority given to them by Parliament. That is why we have public servants. If we did not have people doing that, we could not have these kinds of agreements, which make the international economy work. The things she is saying really do not make sense. I want to point out one other thing. She talked about regulation-making authority.

Subclause 18.1(4) of Bill S-2 includes the definition of regulation-making authority, which includes the Governor-in-Council or the Treasury Board, the minister who recommends the making of regulation, the minister who is accountable to Parliament for the administration of the regulation, any person, other than Statistics Canada, for which either of those ministers is accountable to Parliament. In other words, the people who have the authority to write the regulations are accountable to Parliament.

(1115) Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, every time I stand in the House and raise concerns, the only criticism my colleagues from the Conservative Party have against me is that I do not make sense. I do not know if that is unparliamentary, but those criticisms were not only raised by myself, but were raised by the parliamentary committee on regulations and by the Senate committee on regulations. If the hon. member really thought I did not make sense, then he probably thinks the parliamentary committee on regulations and the Senate do not make sense, with which I totally agree.

My speech was only based on the report from the hon. member's committee and the Senate. There are deep concerns that we let go of our privilege of studying law just because the Conservatives want to adopt Bill S-2 , which is ridiculously large to implement right now, and it would ignore the study of regulations by the people who are elected by Canadians to study law. If the hon. member thinks this does not make sense, then it is time for the government to go. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I certainly would never mention to that colleague that she did not make sense.

I find she makes very good sense. I am very concerned by the incorporation of regulations by reference. It is fine for the Conservatives to say that it has been done in the past in other laws, but the increasing and sweeping use of incorporation of regulations by reference does reduce public accessibility. It reduces our knowledge of what is moving through the Canada Gazette . It reduces the opportunity for Canadians to know what regulations they have to meet.

I have seen it referred to in the media as a “sleeper law”, something that appears so dry that it does not gain public attention, but which does have deeply anti-democratic implications. Would my hon. colleague like to expand on why she believes she continues to make sense? Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues's deep knowledge, as a lawyer, on this kind of legislation.

She knows the implications of what a bill like this could have on Canadian legislation. [ Translation ] I will go on to say that, unfortunately, if the government’s only excuse is that this has already been done in the past, that this has always been done and that, today, we must legalize everything that was done before without it being authorized by law, this clearly shows just how little concern the Conservatives have about creating a whole incorporation by reference system that would not be subject to scrutiny by officials or by Parliament.

The way they see it, if something has been done since time immemorial and was not legal, then today it is all right to pass a bill that would legalize everything that was done in the past. This is not how Canadians want their country to be governed. We need to make regulations that are legal and authorized by law. Today, what the Conservatives are telling us is that they have done this for years and we just need to pass a bill today to authorize them to act in that manner.

I do not think this is a good reason to allow the creation of a whole parallel system for scrutinizing regulations just because there are things that have already been done in the past. [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member has the answer to this question or not, but the leader of the Green Party raised the question of gazetting. I was of the understanding that these regulations, handled this way, would still go through the scrutiny of regulations committee and would probably still have to be authorized by cabinet.

I may be wrong on that, but do they have to be gazetted? That is an important aspect. Does the member, who has studied this in a little more depth than I, have an answer to that question? (1120) [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, to answer the member’s question, I refer to

section 18.4 in the bill. The exact wording is as follows: For greater certainty, a document, index, rate or number that is incorporated by reference in a regulation is not required to be transmitted for registration or published in the Canada Gazette by reason only that it is incorporated by reference. This makes it clear in the law that the incorporation by reference of regulations, either those from other countries or other jurisdictions, will ensure that they will not have to be published. They will not even have to be transmitted for registration.

This means that, at that time, the regulation-making authority will not even have to transmit for registration the incorporations that it makes. This is a huge problem. Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her analysis of this extremely technical bill. She painted a very good picture of the problems we might face if we pass this bill hastily, particularly since no amendments were agreed to in committee. I would also like to point out that this bill will be retroactive. It seems to me that we are seeing things that we have never seen before.

The government seems to be setting a precedent with Bill C-59 , which retroactively authorizes the destruction of the gun registry so that it will not be subject to the Access to Information Act. I am very concerned about the fact that the government realized something was illegal and chose to fix things by retroactively amending legislation. Consider a criminal who commits an offence: he cannot go back in time and change the law to make what he did legal. I would like the member to comment on that. The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île has 50 seconds to answer the question. Ms.

Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, 50 seconds is not enough time to answer the question, but I will do my best. The problem here is that anything that has been incorporated by reference in the past, before the passage of Bill S-2 , does not have to be published in the Canada Gazette . Those regulations will not be forwarded to be registered and will not necessarily be examined by Parliament. Accordingly, even if changes have already been made to a regulation through incorporation by reference, passing Bill S-2 will not solve that problem. It will only make matters worse.

It will be impossible for us to look at everything that was done in the past. Bill S-2 will not solve the problem that, in the past, that was illegal. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to add some thoughts on a particular issue. After reading the title of Bill S-2 , many might think it is a somewhat dull bill, maybe a little boring to read, but as I asked in my question for the parliamentary secretary, the details are in fact very important.

My view of the structure under which our system operates is that we do not give enough attention to regulations. Canadians would be surprised at the degree to which our society is regulated. It does not happen just here in Ottawa; it also happens internationally, and it affects Canadians' lives. It happens at the national level, which is what we are primarily talking about this morning, and it also happens at the provincial and municipal levels. Regulations are a part of everyday life for all of us. They are important and they have a very profound impact.

Some forms of legislation that come to the House of Commons are pretty straightforward and very easy to comment on; on others, such as this one, we have to be somewhat more diligent as we examine them. The Liberal Party has a great deal of concern with regard to Bill S-2 . Overall, we are not in a position to support the bill, because we have a number of concerns. It is important at the get-go to recognize that incorporation by reference enables the federal government or agencies to give legal effect to material that has been published elsewhere. We should all be concerned about that.

We have talked a great deal within the Liberal caucus and we have shared some different ideas and thoughts in two-way communications with Canadians. Time and time again, and in fact earlier this week, we talked about how Ottawa is broken and how we do not see the type of progress that is important. This is one of the pieces of legislation that I would use to cite that. We have standing committees of the House. We have a standing committee that deals strictly with the issue of regulations. Its primary function is to get a better understanding of regulations. It is there to provide diligence.

We in the House might spend relatively little time dealing with the regulations, but there are other ways in which members of the House of Commons deal with regulations, from their creation to their being passed in the House to their appearance in the Canada Gazette . We need to have a decent understanding of what happens today and what the bill is proposing to do. A department I choose to follow quite closely with regard to regulation is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

A number of pieces of law, many of them very targeted and not very positive, have been passed in this administration, but when the law is passed after hours and hours of debate at committee, let alone what takes place outside of committee, that law does not actually deal with the regulations per se, and it is the regulations that will provide the details to either complement or, in some cases, detract from a piece of legislation that has been passed.

(1125) Let me give a specific example. We pass legislation dealing with the issue of citizenship; then we pass regulation to support some of those decisions that were made. As an example, the government passes legislation with an objective of creating additional resources or properly resourcing citizenship in order to speed up the process of acquiring citizenship. Then a regulation that follows stipulates what it would now cost to have that citizenship. We have seen some pretty bizarre things occur in that area, such as the quadrupling of citizenship fees.

That has upset not only a good number of my constituents but also a good number of Canadians across the board. How does that actually happen? The legislation passes here, and then the regulation comes up. Typically, the minister who develops the regulation brings it forward to the full cabinet. The full cabinet ultimately passes it. Then it ends up in the Canada Gazette . All Canadians could then be familiar with what has actually taken place. Through that process, even though all members of Parliament are not necessarily privy to the dialogue in cabinet, there are some eyes on it from parliamentarians.

That is a very important aspect when we deal with regulation. That is because, at the end of the day, if something appears in the Canada Gazette , we should have a sense that there was a Canadian member of Parliament who had eyes on it. Perhaps it was a cabinet member, because the cabinet ultimately approves it prior to its appearance in the Canada Gazette . There is that direct link of accountability. The government is ultimately responsible. Through this particular piece of legislation, we would change that somewhat. One could argue that incorporation by reference already exists. It does occur.

However, this particular piece of legislation would enhance that. It would enable more of it to take place. Concerns have been raised in regard to the impact it would have on the Canada Gazette . Concerns have also been raised in regard to the impact it would have on the House of Commons and on the ability of members of Parliament to hold the government accountable for regulations that would increasingly be changing without any sort of real diligence from the House of Commons. That is a concern that we should all have.

It is something that has caused the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party to express our concern, and it is the reason we will not be supporting Bill S-2 . Bill S-2 would reduce the oversight of federal regulations by allowing sub-delegation of regulation-making power that is already delegated by Parliament to the Governor in Council and other persons. The current government, as I cited, cannot be trusted to use this power responsibly. We have seen that time and time again.

Its willingness to abuse oversight mechanisms through its omnibus legislation and its disregard for the Department of Justice's constitutional review procedure are but a couple of examples. I have had the opportunity to talk about some of those specifics. We have talked about those massive budget bills into which the government incorporates numerous pieces of other legislation, attempting to pass legislation through the back door of the budget, attempting to avoid accountability, attempting to avoid the eyes of MPs, attempting to avoid scrutiny beyond that by many different stakeholders.

It tries to sneak legislation through in these large budget bills.

(1130) In fact, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, I can recall him stating very clearly how wrong it was to be use budget bills as a back door to bring through legislative agendas. No government has done it more than the Conservative government. I could check with my colleague, the member for Charlottetown , about the issue of oversight and the importance of that. The Liberal Party has advocated for parliamentary oversight with respect to CSIS and security related issues. We went through a fairly significant debate on Bill C-51 .

The Conservatives try to give the public the impression that there is a terrorist under every rock. Then the NDP in essence believes that there is no problem, that there is no need to be fearful. Those are two really different approaches. The Liberals understand the importance of safety. We understand the importance of security. However, we also understand the importance of individual rights. We are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We talk about diligence and we look at the importance of our parliamentary committees in providing that kind of oversight.

Through Bill S-2 , there will be less parliamentary oversight on regulations. I believe the parliamentary secretary would recognize, or at the very least should recognize, that. It would have been more encouraging to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about the importance of parliamentary oversight. He and the government are very enthusiastic about this legislation, but we do not hear whether the Government of Canada is prepared to give away a very important part of making regulations through the incorporation by reference.

That will have a very important impact not only today but especially into the future, as Canada is becoming a bigger player in the global market. Therefore, parliamentary oversight is of critical importance. Unfortunately, we lost that debate on Bill C-51 , but we will correct that come fall if we are afforded the opportunity to do so. What about parliamentary oversight on these issues, because these issues are important also? Once again, the government feels we do not need to worry about oversight. The government is wrong. Canadians have a higher expectation of what they want parliamentarians to do.

Let me give members an example that is quite tangible. We are all aware of the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars that the Prime Minister has used for the European trade deal photo ops. There are no lack of resources when it comes to taxpayer dollars to support photo ops on the EU agreement, which is not finalized. I believe Canada is the only signing officer to that agreement. We will have to wait until the next administration comes in to finalize it.

(1135) What about the details of the agreement? The parliamentary secretary acknowledged that a lot of work needed to be done on regulations once the EU agreement was finalized. We should all be concerned with that very important aspect. In part, those regulations play an important role in whether Canada will be on a level playing field. Whether it is the leader of the Liberal Party or any other member of my caucus, we are very proud of our businesses in every region of our country. We know that if we put them on a level playing field, we will excel. We saw trade surpluses during Liberal administrations.

We have confidence in our business community and we are there to support it in getting those new markets. Therefore, we should be concerned. When we talk about these agreements, the regulations will follow them. To what degree does this legislation, for example, say that regulations related to certain aspects of trade agreements through incorporation by reference will not be determined by the House of Commons or that there will be no role for the House? We know that will occur. That is why I asked the member how things were going with respect to that as well as with Ukraine.

If I can just sidetrack for a bit, I have a personal favourite. I would love to see the Prime Minister forgo some of the photo ops, get down to work and get that agreement with Ukraine. The European Union already has done that. Why has Canada not dealt with Ukraine? The regulations would have followed. The Prime Minister needs to focus on how we can help the people of Ukraine in a more real and tangible way. At the same time, it also helps Canada.

With respect to those regulations, people need to recognize that the government has again been found wanting in explaining why it does not feel there is an enhanced role for members of Parliament to play. We are moving more and more into a global situation. MPs need to play a stronger role of monitoring and providing that oversight. We have a standing committee of the House that is responsible for regulations.

As we move toward a stronger role for incorporation by reference, given the international laws and more trade, and the importance of Canada to be engaged in that trade, why not include a stronger role for our standing committee for oversight in legislation? The Liberals have a website called realchange.ca. I would encourage members to go to visit it. They will see opportunities that would allow for additional oversight. When it comes to regulations such as—

(1140) The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order. Mr. Bob Dechert : Mr. Speaker, as much as we would like to hear that member speak for another 60 minutes, and I am sure we will over the next few days, what the opposition members do not seem to understand or get is the state of the law today is that there is no restriction on incorporation by reference. That member is a member of a party that formed— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please.

I am not sure, but I think the parliamentary secretary perhaps thought that I had called for questions and comments. I thought he was standing on a point of order. I will go back to the member for Winnipeg North, who has about 30 to 35 seconds remaining. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know the parliamentary secretary is so eager to ask his question. I was giving my sales pitch with respect to www.realchange.ca. On that website are all sorts of opportunities to get a better understanding of the importance of oversight, among many other things.

I would encourage all members to tap in and feel free to steal some of those ideas. There are plenty of them there. Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the state of the law today is that there are no restrictions on incorporation by reference. That member is a member of a party that formed government from 1993 to 2006, during which time thousands upon thousands of things were incorporated by reference into regulations passed under his party's government with no oversight and no restriction whatsoever.

Bill S-2 would put those restrictions and guidelines in place. Obviously the member has not read subparagraph18.1(4) of the bill, and I would encourage him to do so right now if he can. He will see there is a definition of regulation-making authority and every individual or body is accountable to Parliament. This legislation would make all of this accountable to Parliament, whether it is incorporation of a foreign statute or incorporation by technical standards. Those members talk about putting technical standards in the Canada Gazette , which could be tens of thousands of pages of numbers and schematics.

They have not really thought this through.

(1145) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the parliamentary secretary. If members want to get a good sense of international regulations that have been put into effect, they can look at the previous Liberal administration under Jean Chrétien and some of the regulations that were done with regard to modernizing some of those international relations with respect to the automobile industry, which was of great benefit in particular for the production of vehicles. We are talking about literally thousands of jobs as a direct result. It is important. That is why I said the details of regulation do matter.

It means everything from the safety of the food that we eat to the production of vehicles. The member referred to legislation. I am not alone in my thinking that there needs to be more parliamentary oversight on a number of different issues. It is critically important, as we go more into the world economy, that incorporation by reference becomes an issue in the House. We should ensure there is that parliamentary oversight. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, specifically regarding four amendments that I presented in committee, which were all rejected by the government. One of the things I included was a definition of accessibility. Under my amendment, any incorporation by reference that requires fees could not be deemed accessible. I would like him to explain whether he believes that it would be appropriate to charge fees for access to a legislative measure or he believes that access should be free. Furthermore, how would he define accessibility in the context of Bill S-2 ? [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr.

Speaker, I will provide an answer to the member, but if I may, I would first recognize that what we have seen with the government over the last four years is an absolute denial of any real attempt to improve legislation. The member mentioned that she had attempted to bring amendments to the floor. The member's intention, no doubt, was to have some sort of discussion and debate on them. I was not there when she moved the amendments, but I feel fairly confident in saying that because she is a member of the opposition her amendments, no matter what they were, would not have been accepted.

The attitude of government is that it only accepts amendments from Conservative members. There might be the odd exception, but I can say that there are literally hundreds of amendments that have been introduced over the last four years of the Conservative-Reform majority government, and they consistently have been rejected. It is a terrible way to be running our committees. Realchange.ca sets out the reasons we should be reforming our standing committees. In regard to access, it is absolutely critical that Canadians have access to the information that is important to them.

I do not know the fee breakdown which the member is specifically referring to, but access is absolutely critical. If we could prevent having a fee, that would be a good thing. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member referred in his remarks to the regulations. From my point of view, one of the worrisome aspects is that we do get governments that would govern basically by regulation. Regulations do not have the same kind of scrutiny as legislation does in the House and cabinet directives in which the full regulations are laid out.

There are people who do pay attention to the Gazette on an ongoing basis and they can raise concerns if there are regulations that they disagree with. There is a period in which to respond. We know how far the government will already go when the PCO and the PMO encourage the RCMP to break the law. We cannot pick and choose what laws to support. I will have members on the government side know that the Access to Information Act is a law that applies to this House too, yet the Prime Minister encouraged the breaking of that law. Then it was covered up by way of a clause in a budget bill.

The PMO encourages our national police force to break a law and then covers it up by way of legislation. I ask the member, is he concerned about regulations—

(1150) The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member of Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate why the member raised that issue. I, too, am quite concerned. We have laws in place and they are to be followed. If one is the prime minister or minister of justice, one has an obligation to follow the law as well. I suspect that we have not heard the end of that particular issue. From what I understand, through the Prime Minister's Office there was information going to the RCMP encouraging it, in essence, to break the law. I do not think that is something we should just forget about.

It is one of the reasons I made reference in my comments to the fact that we just cannot trust this particular government. It is beyond me in terms of some of the actions the Conservatives have taken. The member made reference to a very serious one. It is quite amazing, and I would suggest very undemocratic, particularly regarding the massive budget implementation bills that we have seen which have attempted to change laws through the back door. There are so many reasons that we should be concerned. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in my colleague's exchange with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice , he indicated that he would repeal any dynamic incorporation by reference such as amended from time to time. The parliamentary secretary said that there were many incorporations by reference on the previous Liberal government's watch. Could he please tell us which of those dynamic incorporations by reference he would seek to repeal specifically that were done under the Liberal watch? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question. I do not have a book in front of me that lists all of the regulations.

However, the member raises an interesting point. When I say the regulations have an impact on every Canadian, the regulations come in many different forms and at many levels, not only at the municipal level, but also at the provincial—I have already named some—national and international levels, and there are regulations that pass every day that have a fairly significant impact on all of us. The point is that as time evolves, we want to ensure that we have some sense of diligence when it comes to regulations.

Especially in the last number of years, it has become more and more important that we ensure that we institute parliamentary oversight given the very behaviour of the majority government. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill S-2 , the incorporation by reference in regulations act. I would like to start by addressing some of the comments that my colleague raised in debate with regard to our government's track record in supporting the will of Parliament.

What the Liberal Party, the third party in the corner over there, intimated was that the government was wrong in repealing the long gun registry. However, Canadians spoke very loudly against the long gun registry and we had a mandate in which to do that. Then Parliament, and of course when we talk about sovereignty the will of Parliament is very important, decided to do that. Then, of course, a provincial court ruling upheld the decision to destroy this data. The member somehow intimated that the government was in the wrong here.

What is really at the core of this particular issue is the sovereignty of Parliament. That is at the core of some of the objections to this piece of legislation which have come up in debate. I would like to address those, but I would first of all like to provide some context about the legislation as well as why it is an important piece that Parliament should be seized with. First of all, to contextualize some of the opposition to the bill, I would like to define what a regulation is.

This is from the Treasury Board website: A regulation is one of the many instruments that government uses to achieve policy objectives and improve the quality of life of Canadians. A regulation, in its broadest sense, sets out principles, rules, or conditions that govern the behaviour of citizens and organizations. Governments use regulations in combination with other instruments to achieve public policy objectives. Regulations are a form of law–they have force of law and usually set out general rules and penalties rather than specific ones that are directed toward persons or situations.

Regulating is an extension of the power given to Parliament by the Constitution to make laws. It is through a delegation of authority from Parliament in

an act–known as an “enabling authority”--that the Governor in Council (the Governor General, acting on the advice of the federal Cabinet), the Treasury Board, a minister, or another administrative agency is given the authority to make regulations. The regulation is thus referred to as “delegated” or “subordinate” legislation. Authority to make regulations must be expressly provided for in the enabling legislation. Regulations must be consistent with all provisions of the enabling act.

The Statutory Instruments Act provides a specific definition of the term “regulation.” The Drafting and Advisory Services Group of the Department of Justice...is responsible for ensuring that a proposed regulation is consistent with that definition. Right in the definition of what a regulation is, it sets out the role of Parliament and the sovereignty of Parliament and being able to set out its force, et cetera. Today the bill is seized with the concept of incorporation by reference. For those in the gallery who may not understand what incorporation by reference is, the following is from the legislative

summary of the bill: Incorporation by reference, as explained by John Mark Keyes in Executive Legislation , “is a drafting technique for providing that a legislative text … includes material (text, information or concepts) expressed elsewhere. The material is included without reproducing it within the legislative text. Different types of materials may be incorporated by reference.

For example, a legislative text may incorporate another provision from the same text, provisions from another legislative text enacted in the same jurisdiction, legislative texts of another jurisdiction, or non-legislative texts such as technical standards or international agreements. Of course, this is very timely in the context of the over 43 trade agreements that our government has brought into force during our tenure. The legislative

summary continues: In addition, incorporation by reference can be either “open” or “closed.” “Closed” or “static” incorporation by reference incorporates the document as it exists at the time into the regulation. One of the advantages of incorporation by reference is that it can be used to avoid duplication so that regulation-making authority does not have to reproduce the incorporated material in its entirety. The legislative

summary also notes that incorporation by reference may promote harmonization. This is particularly important in terms of seeking interjurisdictional harmonization, for example, to facilitate transactions or activities across borders.

(1155) Why is the bill necessary? As was mentioned, our government has undertaken a very aggressive and substantive free trade agenda. We have free trade agreements with many different jurisdictions in the world. In fact, I would think that is one of the competitive advantages that Canada now has in economy, in that we are positioned to have free trade access into the European market, as well as into the Asian supply chain through the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement.

Therefore, when we are looking at some of the agreements or legalities associated with these trade agreements, standards might be one of the things we need to look at. Certainly, in terms of regulation drafting, where there is an overall established governing standard that might be useful to incorporate in by reference, we need to have the mechanisms in government to do that. Canada is at the forefront of standards development.

There are hundreds of standards developed in Canada as part of the national standards system in Canada and then incorporated into federal and provincial regulations, such as standards developed by organizations like the Canadian General Standards Board, which would most likely be recognized by the name the Canadian Standards Association. Standards developed by these organizations have already become key to the way sectors are regulated in Canada. There are more than 250 different standards produced by the Canadian Standards Association that are referenced in federal regulations.

We have this big free trade agenda and we are at the forefront of standards development. Also, standards development is very dynamic and fluid. Standards and regulations often follow, as we see advances and innovations in new ways of doings things, processes, and technologies. We need to be in a position as legislators to quickly and nimbly respond to these changes in the regulatory environment without causing undue duplication. At this point, I would like to emphasize one of the great impacts of looking at regulatory review on an ongoing basis.

The House is riveted with the extremely sexy topic of regulatory reform. I actually think it is. This is a very pertinent topic. The fact that our government, through this Parliament, brought in one-for-one regulation review signals to the business community that our government wants to ensure that Canadians have the highest level of health and safety, but also that we are not compounding an undue compliance burden on business. One of the things that businesses often tell us when we consult with them is that they want no surprises.

They want to comply with government regulations on health and safety, but a determinant to investment can be surprise or duplicative regulations or regulations that have a compliance burden that is unduly onerous. Therefore, it is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure we are achieving that regulatory outcome without an overly complex and undue burden in our regulatory system. Regulation by incorporation as proposed in Bill S-2 , and how that would happen, both simplify and allow nimbleness in our regulatory system, which is a competitive advantage for Canadian business. What would the bill do?

Everyone is so remarkably enchanted with it, but it is important to talk about it. I am going to quote from speeches given by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice , as well as the member for Kildonan—St. Paul : This bill deals with the regulatory drafting technique. What does that mean? That means the process by which we draft regulations in government. Essentially, the bill is about when federal regulators can or cannot use the technique of incorporation by reference. The technique of incorporation by reference is currently used in a wide range of federal regulations.

Indeed, it is difficult to think of a regulated area in which incorporation by reference is not used to some degree. The bill is about securing the government's access to a drafting technique that has already become essential to the way government regulates. It is also about leading the way internationally in terms of modernization of regulations. Again, this sends a signal to civil society and our business community that we are ensuring we have regulations that promote the health and safety of Canadians, but also are clear and accessible for businesses and folks to understand and to comply with.

More particularly, Bill S-2 responds to concerns expressed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations about when incorporation by reference can be used. The bill would create the legal clarification needed so that regulators and the committee could leave uncertainty behind.

(1200) What does this mean? This means that there are people within the government who draft regulations, and we have heard through committee study that there needs to be more clarity in which context and which circumstances incorporation by reference can be used. That is what the bill seeks to do. I would point to some of the more significant changes that the bill addresses. In subsection 18.1(1), it states that: ...the power to make a regulation includes the power to incorporate in it by reference a document—or a part of a document—as it exists on a particular date or as it is amended from time to time.

This covers both the static and ambulatory incorporation by reference—and the differences in these two terms have been set out to a large degree by other speakers on this topic—and appears to apply regardless of the powers to make a regulation respecting or prescribing a matter or otherwise. This power is subject, however, to the limitation in subsection 18.1(2), which relates to a document produced by the regulation-making authority, either alone or jointly with a person or body in the federal public administration.

In essence, a document provided by the regulation-making authority itself can be incorporated by reference into a regulation only if it does the following: it contains only elements that are incidental or elaborate on the rules set out in the regulation and is incorporated as it exists on a particular date; it is reproduced or translated from a document or part of a document produced by a person or body other than the regulation-making authority with any adaptations of form or reference that will facilitate in its incorporation regulation; or is a regulation.

The intent of the provisions set out in paragraph 18.1(2)(

a) appears to be to ensure that the regulation-making authority cannot circumvent the regular procedure under the Statutory Instruments Act that I referenced earlier by making the substance of a regulation in a subsequent document, which it then incorporates by reference into its own regulation without the usual requirements of registration, publication, et cetera. We have the context of what is a regulation, why it is important, how the regulatory process works in Canada right now, and then how the bill helps to augment and simplify that process.

With that context, I would like to address some of the key concerns that arose in debate on the bill when it was previously debated in the House. One of the questions was this: What are the standards that are currently incorporated by reference? There are many kinds of standards that are already incorporated by reference in federal regulations, including standards written by the International Organization for Standardization and other recognized international standards. A recent review of existing references in federal regulations revealed almost 400 references to these standards established by expert bodies.

My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île , Quebec, who was here earlier today, wondered exactly who a person is other than the regulation body authority, given some of the language in the bill. She said there is nothing to define that. That is false because, if she logs onto the Treasury Board website, she can see all of the different decision-making bodies that are a part of the regulatory process in Canada, including Treasury Board and Parliament itself. This is a fitting discussion, given that we are close to the end of this Parliament, God willing.

What is the issue of sovereignty and how does Canada maintain its sovereignty if we are going to incorporate by reference in regulations or standards that are international standards? How do we oversee and ensure that these regulations are up to snuff for Canadians? At the end of this Parliament, we should be looking at the role of Parliament. It is in this place that we as legislators continually review legislation, review what is in the best interests of Canadians. In fact, we have had many debates in this session around new regulations.

So when I hear that somehow there is no oversight, or somehow through incorporation by reference we would lose the ability to review this stuff, I completely disagree because it is in this place that opposition members can bring up and question the efficacy of regulations as we go forward.

(1205) There is something further to this that I want to point out, because this point has come up many times, and that is the role of the scrutiny of regulations committee. I pulled up part of the committee testimony that occurred in November 2004. This particular item was spoken to by the then joint chair, Senator Bryden. He spoke to the fact that the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations actually had a pretty substantive mandate. He stated: The Statutory Instruments Act provides for the “review and scrutiny” of statutory instruments by the SJC.

This review is conducted in accordance with the criteria adopted by the SJC.... Although the terms of s. 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act do not preclude review of subordinate legislation on its merits, the criteria adopted by the SJC do not provide for the review of instruments on policy grounds. What it does set out is a huge set of criteria by which this committee can review regulations.

It says it can review “whether any regulation or other statutory instrument within its terms of reference, in the judgment of the committee”, and then it goes through all the points that were brought up here, such as whether it is in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was brought up. How do we know if a regulation that has been brought in through incorporation by reference is not in alignment with the charter?

The standing committee certainly has the role of reviewing that, and I would also point out that, as with any other piece of legislation, the Canadian public can challenge legislation through the court system. Of course, Parliament being sovereign in a lot of respects, it is our job as legislators to put forward regulations and legislation that come from the will of the people, which we believe are in the best interests of the people we represent. With the end of Parliament near, I think that is what we have all sought to do here across party lines.

Our ideologies might differ from time to time, sometimes vehemently. Even though we are sitting here on a Thursday near the end of session talking about scrutiny of regulations, we are talking about what is in the best interests of Canadians. My colleagues opposite might have a different view, but that is our job here. It is somehow implied, and often comes up in debate, that the Supreme Court said one thing or another, and we have to respect and work with the judiciary, but this place is where we debate and make legislation.

With that, in what I hope is my final speech in this Parliament, I would like to deeply thank my constituents in Calgary Centre-North for the privilege of being able to stand here and debate important issues like this. On behalf of all my colleagues who stand in their places, I thank every Canadian who gave us the mandate to be here, to respect the will of Parliament and, I hope, to agree that Bill S-2 would simplify the regulatory process in Canada, would benefit business, and would continue to place Canada at the forefront of leading regulatory review around the world. (1210) [ Translation ] Ms.

Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and wish her a good summer if this is in fact her last speech in the House. A key point she raised in her speech had to do with one of the reasons why we should support incorporation by reference. She said that it would be useful because of the many international treaties that Canada signs. However, incorporation by reference could lead to making regulations that are not bilingual. Could the minister tell us where she stands on this issue, which is of concern to many Canadians, given that Canada is a bilingual country?

Does she believe that incorporation by reference should be subject to the rules governing bilingualism in Canada? Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. My maiden name was Godin. [ English ] Actually, half my family is of Franco-Manitoban heritage. I personally think Canada's bilingual heritage is something, as we approach our sesquicentennial, that is very important to the country. Certainly this is why all of our government laws and all of our practices encourage and require translation and the availability of documentation in both official languages.

Incorporation by reference, in part, would be part of a larger act of Parliament or other systems that would reflect those views. It is also worth noting that when we are referring to international standard documents, often these are highly technical specific pieces of information. When we are adopting standards or seeking to adopt standards, Canada often collaborates in the development of those standards. As I mentioned, this is something we are a world leader in.

In terms of the availability of information, I think our official languages requirement enshrines that in terms of how incorporation by reference would allow the accessibility of information. I think this has already proven to be useful, because it is already happening, in practice, in our legislative system.

(1215) Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague finished off on a positive note. Yes, we are here to debate Bill S-2 , in this case. We may have different views on things, but that is what we are here to do. I would like clarification on a couple of things she said. Would she agree with me that the 28 countries that are part of the European Union have not signed the CETA agreement? In fact, I am concerned that they are moving away from that. Therefore, it is somewhat of an exaggeration to claim that we have signed a free trade agreement with 28 countries.

My second point is far more important. I believe I heard the member talk about the will of Parliament. I am referring, of course, to the destruction of registry documents by the RCMP, with the encouragement of the current government. The will of Parliament is a very important thing, but would she not agree with me that it also includes respect for all the laws of this land, including the access to information law? In this particular case, this access to information law has actually been violated.

Would she agree with me that it is fine to talk about the will of Parliament but that one must, at the same time, respect all the laws that have been made in this House? Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to debate the member in the House and occasionally to thank him for his previous service to our country. With regard to the Canada-European Union free trade agreement, I would be remiss if I did not point out the stark contrast between our government and the previous Liberal government in terms of the capacity to enter into international trade agreements.

I would even go so far as to say that the Liberal government was protectionist in comparison to our government's access to free trade. Certainly the achievement of the terms that have been set out thus far in negotiating the free trade agreement with the European Union is a milestone. I think in 25 years we will look back and say that it was a moment when Canada came into its own. That happened under our tenure, our government. It is something, as I go forward this summer, I can take to my constituents and be quite proud of in terms of the opportunities that will come forward from that.

The second component he brought up was the legislation and debate on the long gun registry in this Parliament. Our government took the elimination and destruction of the long gun registry, the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry, to the Canadian public in 2011, and we received a majority mandate to remove that legislation. When we came into this House, we followed up on the will of law-abiding hunters, anglers, fishers, and farmers who work on the land, who use these weapons in accordance with the laws of the land, When we talk about respecting laws, we made a law here that respects Canadians. Mr.

Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech. She is a big advocate for western Canada and for all Canada. I am glad to see that she has embraced incorporation by reference as much as she has western business. The parliamentary secretary has already discussed the benefits of free trade and non-tariff access for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian businesses.

Could she also discuss the importance of making sure that when Canadian businesses and enterprises, supported by her ministry, decide to go out into the world to compete, which they can, we harmonize in ways that serve everyone's best interests, both consumers in each country and business interests, so that we can have Canadian products enjoyed right around this globe?

(1220) Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his tireless work on this file. This is a very technical piece of legislation and one he has learned inside out and contributed to in committee. I want to thank him for his contribution. As Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, I have the great privilege of consulting with every different stakeholder group possible in western Canada.

One of the things I hear about when I meet with chambers of commerce and small businesses, and certainly as referenced by the Canadian Federation for Independent Business in some of its reports, is the need to reduce red tape for small businesses. Why is that important? What does it mean? When we have a piece of government regulation, often there is an extra burden on small business, because the compliance load is shared among a smaller proportion of employees. When we look at productivity, any additional regulation often disproportionately influences small business.

We can look at some of the changes we have put in place with respect to both Bill S-2 , to harmonize some of the regulations, including the adoption of standards, and legislation that previously passed in the House on one-for-one regulation review. I spoke to a group of utility heads in Washington last year and gave a rousing speech about this that excited those in the room. It is actually a huge competitive advantage for Canadian business, especially when we compare ourselves to other jurisdictions where they might not be as prone to ensuring a deep commitment to reducing the regulatory compliance burden. Hon.

Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : On the lighter side, Mr. Speaker, the member started off by asking her colleagues to pay attention to the wonderful speech she was going give on this matter. I do not know if she has had the opportunity to sit on the scrutiny of regulations committee, which some members of this Parliament had to do. I have sat on that committee. To be honest, I would rather watch paint dry. I want to recognize all of those members who sit on that very detailed committee, because it is not an easy committee. That is the only point I want to make. They did a tough job on that committee. Hon.

Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, in the dying hours of this Parliament, let us all give a rousing round of applause to everyone who sits on the scrutiny of regulations committee for their ongoing regulations reviews, both for or against, regardless of political ideology, to make Canadians healthier and safer. It is a very important committee. It is one that is very technical. My colleague has described some of our colleagues' reactions to it.

However, it speaks to the importance of debate and participation in parliamentary committees in this place and the fact that anyone in this place can make a difference, regardless of what committee members are on and regardless of the place they take in this place. It has been an honour serving with all of my colleagues in this Parliament, and I wish them a happy summer. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, after I was elected in 2011 by my constituents in Gatineau, to whom I am grateful for this immense honour, our then leader, the great Jack Layton, did me the honour of naming me co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. I admit that I wondered what a committee like that was all about. I heard the member for Malpeque say that he would rather watch paint dry than attend a meeting of that committee.

In my opinion, members of that committee have to be passionate about the law and have an immense respect for our role as legislators. What is more, that role is not just about creating laws and bringing them into effect. It is also about making the related regulations. The law is one thing, but that law often requires the creation of dozens of regulations for its implementation. I want to thank the members of the committee, but especially all the experts who guide us in that committee. However, I no longer have the pleasure of being a member of that committee.

It is true that I wondered what that committee was all about. In reality, I also wondered at first if I was being punished, but I realized that I was not. My leader at the time felt that my background as a lawyer with 30 years of experience, which I sadly admit in the House, made me a prime candidate to co-chair the committee. I saw first-hand the thoroughness of the experts and of the departmental and House staff who provided support as we carried out this difficult work. Every week we had a foot-high pile of documents to examine during a two-hour committee meeting, and I am hardly exaggerating.

One might have said it was challenging and rather dry, but it was necessary work nonetheless. I would like to give a little background. Members forget that Bill S-2 was originally introduced in 2012 by the Conservative government in the form of Bill S-12 . At the time, as deputy justice critic for my colleague from St. John's East , our justice critic, and as a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, I also had the great pleasure of being responsible for Bill S-12 . From the beginning I have been saying that this bill is a sleeper.

I am pleased that we have another opportunity to debate it, although it is at third reading. We did not have much time to debate second reading and report stages, and there were not many meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île continues the work on Bill S-2 that I had started on Bill S-12 , and I thank her for that. She took this on during the study in committee and at all stages in the House. I called this bill the sleeper of this legislature because this is a bill that could have a huge impact on the lives of Canadians.

I do not get the impression that members on the Conservative benches have taken it as seriously as they should have. I said this when I spoke at report stage. It has not drawn much attention from the media, aside from journalist Tom Korski at Blacklock's Reporter . What he wrote in 2012 might have been what first tipped me off.

(1225) The title of the

article was: [ English ] “Senate Quietly Ends 171 Years Of Scrutiny With Bill”. [ Translation ] The

article said: [ English ] An obscure Senate bill will end 171 years of open scrutiny of regulations governing virtually every aspect of the economy and national life, critics say. The government legislation…would permit the introduction of new rules without plain disclosure of all related laws— It would end a practice that predates Confederation. (1230) [ Translation ] At the time, some senators expressed their opinions, including Senator Harb, who has since retired and is dealing with other problems. [ English ] He said: “This is a big, big problem. There is little awareness of this bill.

If regulated industries become aware of what is in this bill, there will be outrage.” Senator Marjorie LeBreton, a senator that the Conservatives might be more inclined to listen to and the government leader in the Upper House at the time, refused an interview. The government bill was introduced without fanfare in the Senate on October 17, 2012. I find this next

part interesting. It quotes Mac Harb: In the House of Commons too many MPs ask questions. In the Senate there are many new senators who do not understand the history of these procedures. The Senate is a dull place. I think they are trying to force it through. The

article explains the practice. It states: Under a practice that dates from 1841, all federal rules and decisions must be plainly published for public scrutiny to provide Canadians “their rightful access to the laws and regulations that govern their daily lives,” according to the Canada Gazette Directorate, the federal agency that prints all details of legislation. Under bill S-12,

An Act To Amend The Statutory Instruments Act [now Bill S-2 ], regulations could be delegated— —and that is also important— —from unpublished sources “as amended from time to time” in a little-known practice called “incorporation by reference”.... “This cuts down on the onerous amount of material that would have to be included in a number of regulations,” a bill supporter, Senator Linda Frum, told the Upper House. That, I would say, is probably the main argument for the government—to really trim down and help out—because it is true that there are tens of thousands of pages per year. I do agree, but we have to do it in a correct fashion. Still quoting Senator Frum, the

article continues: “If a regulation provides that hockey helmets must be manufactured in accordance with a particular Canadian Standards Association standard, the effect of that reference is to make that standard part of the regulation without actually reproducing the text of the standard in the regulation itself.” That seems to make sense. It continues: In debate, Senator Harb called the bill “a blockbuster” that would permit the government to enact new regulations without public scrutiny or pa