CIMM Committee Report

    Since it was only made available after the Committee had completed almost all of its hearings, we have not been able to undertake any more than a brief review. One issue that did cause some concern was clause 273, which relates to the return of seized items to a lawful owner. It is difficult to tell from the regulations when an innocent third party whose car is used to violate the Act will have to pay $5,000 for the return of their vehicle. Department officials indicated that clause 273(1) regarding the return of a "thing" without charge will apply to vehicles and that this will be clarified in the manuals, but properly drafted regulations should be clear on their face.

RECOMMENDATION 75

The regulations should be amended to clearly indicate that a vehicle’s lawful owner who did not participate in the fraudulent use of the vehicle, and who had no reasonable grounds to believe that it would be so used, will have their vehicle returned without any fee or payment.

    The rules for providing notice to transportation companies who may have to pay repatriation costs or arrange for repatriation themselves are also set out in detail in Tranche 2. This had been a concern of one organization who also indicated that it would be eager to see how the regulations address the definition of "transportation companies," the definition of "security" to be provided, and the potential liability for the medical costs incurred by passengers. Whether transportation companies will have significant concerns about Tranche 2 is unknown. The transitional provisions relating to refugees may also evoke a reaction from some parties. The Committee regrets that it has not been able to hear from these groups regarding this set of regulations. Their input would be valuable to the Department and should be actively sought.