[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 26, 1996
.0912 
[English]
The Chairman: I would like to open this session of the subcommittee on Bill C-25, the Regulations Act.
This morning we'll be doing clause-by-clause. We have as our witnesses the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice; from the Department of Justice, Mary Dawson, Associate Deputy Minister; Ryan Rempel, counsel; and Nancy Othmer, counsel.
The order of reference for the bill is dated Tuesday, June 18, 1996. It is ordered that Bill C-25, an act respecting regulations and other documents, including the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents, and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It was referred and then re-referred to us as a subcommittee.
I want to thank the officials for being here this morning. Do you want to make any comments or give any explanations at the outset?
All right, then, shall clause 1 be allowed to stand, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1)?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
On clause 2 - Definitions
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
[Translation]
M. Lebel (Chambly): Hold on, please. Let's not go too fast. Since we have started this game, let's play it to the end.
We called witnesses, we heard them, but we did not listen to them. We are considering a very important clause dealing with the definitions of ``regulatory authority,'' ``regulatory process,'' and ``regulation.'' I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have the decency to listen to people who do not share your infatuation with power and to let the Minister of Justice have his say on this.
.0915
You have no motion to amend clause 2?
The Chairman: I have no recommendation.
Mr. Lebel: The meaning of the term ``regulation'' is very important; it comprises two definitions. You know that, since you read the black book, just as I did.
The first definition is given in clause 2(1), but the second definition is not given anywhere. It was established by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and is based on the description of the application of regulatory process in clause 4, as well as on the provisions in clause 4 and in clauses 6 to 10. The terms ``regulatory process'' and ``regulation'' have been confused.
I hereby give notice that I shall be moving appropriate amendments in the House, when the bill is referred back. This isn't going through that easily.
The Chairman: I understand. Committee members have the right to move amendments.
Are there amendments? There are none?
[English]
Clause 2 agreed to
On clause 3 - General or specific exercise of powers
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: To clause 3? Perhaps it's new clause 3.1.
Mr. Maloney: Yes, it's an addition.
The Chairman: We'll deal with clause 3 and then we'll entertain an amendment for the addition of a new clause.
Clause 3 agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Hold on, Mr. Chairman. I have just realized that you have not been made aware of the amendments we submitted yesterday. I did not specifically ask for them to be forwarded to you. The clerk just told me that she did not forward them to you. This was a formality I was not aware of, but we do have amendments to move.
When we come to those clauses for which we will be moving amendments, we will have to stop. It is unfortunate that you do not have the amendments. You should have had them; you should have been made aware of them. We are all part of the team. Now it is too late to have the clerk photocopy them. But you must at least be aware that we have amendments.
[English]
The Chairman: The clerk informs me that as of last evening we were informed the Bloc would not be bringing forward any amendments. We were told some were drafted, but they would not be....
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Who notified you of this?
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Luc Morin told me last night at 5:30 that you wouldn't be proposing any amendments at clause-by-clause, and we never received any amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Yes, I spent quite a bit of time that evening drafting the amendments withLuc Morin.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Lebel, if you have copies of your amendments and if you will distribute them, we can still consider them as we go through the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Agreed.
[English]
The Chairman: What's the first one?
[Translation]
Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are carried. We are now moving on to the next clause.
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Chairman, you are actually on clause 3.
[English]
The Chairman: Clause 3 is carried. Now we have an amendment proposing new clause 3.1.
.0920
Mr. Maloney: I move that Bill C-25 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 2 the following:
3.1 A regulatory authority may consult the Deputy Minister of Justice on any matter relating to the making of regulations, including the application of this Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: I would like to delete the words ``may consult'' and ``peut consulter'' and substitute the words ``must consult'' and ``doit consulter''. These words appear in the new clause 3.1 moved by Mr. Maloney.
The Chairman: It would be perhaps be better if witnesses gave us an explanation.
Mr. Lebel: I have no further use for the witnesses. I know how biased they are. In the new clause 3.1 that has been moved, we should replace the word ``may'' with ``must'' in the English version, and the word ``peut'' with ``doit'' in the French version. Consultation must be mandatory. I support the rest of the amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: I would ask you, Mr. Lebel, to write it out as a subamendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: I therefore propose a subamendment, which would amend the motion on clause 3.1 as follows:
[English]
``A regulatory authority must consult''. Change the word ``may'' to ``must'', and in the French version change the word peut to doit.
The Chairman: It's not necessary to make the translation. One official language is sufficient.
Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understand the process. He's proposing a subamendment. I don't see the need to circulate the subamendment.
The Chairman: No, no, but it has to be written and signed for the record of the committee.
Ms Whelan: Okay. Are we going to deal with it now, though?
The Chairman: We'll deal with it as soon as Mr. Lebel has written it and it's in proper form.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: I hope my colleague understands that I myself received the amendments only this morning. It would have been rather difficult to forecast what they would be and to amend them before having received them. So I am doing my best here, and I would invite you to go on.
.0925
[English]
The Chairman: The subamendment as proposed by Mr. Lebel is that amendment G-1 be amended by deleting the word ``may'' in the first line and replacing it with the word ``must''. It would read:
- A regulatory authority must consult the Deputy Minister of Justice on any matter relating to the
making of regulations, including the application of this Act.
Ms Mary Dawson (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Justice): I would suggest the amendment really goes counter to the intention of the provision.
The intention of the provision is to provide the capacity for regulatory authorities to consult the Deputy Minister of Justice, but it's unclear to me what it would mean if that were made into a ``must'', because there's no class being discussed in this provision. It's simply a provision that allows anybody to consult the Deputy Minister of Justice on anything. I'd suggest the ``must'' really wouldn't work too well in this provision.
Subamendment negatived
Amendment agreed to
On clause 4 - Application of the regulatory process
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. White?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): I want to deal with an amendment to subclause 4(1),Mr. Chairman. Is that next, or are you trying to encompass all of clause 4 in this discussion right now?
The Chairman: This is the time to discuss it.
Mr. White: Okay. In subclause 4(1), the words ``enabling provision'' on the second line should be replaced with the word ``act'' so it reads:
- The regulatory process applies to any regulation made under an act that calls it a regulation or
specifies another type of document.
I can give you an example. Say section X of a statute provides that the Governor in Council may prescribe methods for the transportation of dangerous goods and a later section in that act prescribes a penalty for contravention of any regulation made under that section. Then you have a problem right away, because the document prescribing methods for the transportation of dangerous goods would be a regulation, as defined in subclause 2(1) of this bill, but the regulatory process would not apply to it, because the enabling provision doesn't call it a regulation.
This kind of problem can be completely avoided by just changing ``enabling provision'' to ``act'' in there, to ensure it captures all of those sorts of situations.
The Chairman: You wish to propose a subamendment or just an amendment?
Mr. White: It's just an amendment to replace the words ``enabling provision'' with the word ``act''.
The Chairman: All right. We'll need a written and signed note, Mr. White, if you would.
Is there any discussion on this amendment suggested by Mr. White? Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, maybe Ms Dawson could clarify this for us. I'm not sure I'm following Mr. White's amendment.
Ms Dawson: Mr. Chairman, I don't follow the purport of the amendment either.
The Chairman: Well, I guess we'll wait until Mr. White finishes.
Ms Dawson: Okay.
.0930
.0932
The Chairman: We have an amendment to subclause 4(1) from Mr. White, which suggests replacing the words ``enabling provision'' in lines 2 and 3 with the word ``act''. Is there any discussion?
Ms Dawson.
Ms Dawson: Mr. Chairman, I've not seen this amendment until just now, but giving an immediate reaction I think there may be a problem. I'm not sure that it substantively makes any difference whether it says ``enabling provision'' or ``act'', except that I understand that sometimes these regulations are made under regulation as well as under acts and if you just said ``act'' you'd be leaving out some of the possible regulations that were meant to be covered.
If you expand the proposal to say ``made under an act or a regulation'', I begin to get confused because of the different meanings of ``regulation''. I would suggest there's no problem with the words ``enabling provision''.
The Chairman: If there is no further discussion, I'll read the amendment. The amendment reads that lines 2 and 3 of subclause 4(1) be deleted and replaced by the words
- any regulation made under an act that calls it a regulation or specifies an -
The Chairman: We'll now go to a vote on clause 4.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Chairman, I asked for a recorded division on this clause.
.0935
[English]
Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
Clause 5 agreed to
On clause 6 - Responsibilities of regulatory authorities
The Chairman: I believe there's an amendment to clause 6.
Mr. Maloney: In my amendment I suggest replacing line 17 on page 3 with the following:
6. Each regulatory authority is respon-
That would just delete subclause 6(1). Then to make more sense, my second amendment would be deleting lines 21 to 24 on page 3.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 6 as amended agreed to
On clause 7 - Responsibilities of the Deputy Minister of Justice
The Chairman: There's an amendment in clause 7, which I believe is consequential to the amendment in clause 6. Is that correct?
Mr. Maloney: Yes. I propose that clause 7 of Bill C-25 be amended by replacing line 28 on page 3 with the following:
- responsibilities under section 6.
Clause 7 as amended agreed to
Clause 8 agreed to
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
On clause 11 - Unpublished regulations
The Chairman: Is there an amendment for clause 11?
Mr. Maloney: I move that clause 11 of the French version of Bill C-25 be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 5 with the following:
[Translation]
11. Nul ne peut être reconnu coupable d'une infraction à un règlement ou se voir infliger une peine par suite de sa contravention dans le cas où, à la date du fait reproché, le règlement n'avait pas été publié confor-
[English]
The Chairman: Is there any discussion? Ms Dawson.
.0940
Ms Dawson: There are three amendments to the French version. This is the first of the three. They're a result of technical comments made by witnesses at this committee earlier, by I think primarily the Quebec bar association. All three of them are technical refinements of the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 11 as amended agreed to
Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to
Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
On clause 18 - Defence
Ms Whelan: I move to amend Bill C-25 in clause 18 by replacing, in the French version, lines 11 to 19 on page 8 with the following:
[Translation]
18. Nul ne peut être reconnu coupable d'une infraction à une disposition d'un règlement dans laquelle un document est incorporé par renvoi, ou se voir infliger une peine par suite de la contravention d'une telle disposition, sauf s'il est prouvé que, au moment du fait reproché:
a) soit le contrevenant avait facilement accès au document;
b) soit des mesures raisonnables avaient été prises pour que les intéressés puissent y avoir accès;
c) soit le document avait été publié dans la Gazette du Canada.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
Clause 18 as amended agreed to
.0945
Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
Clause 20 agreed to
Clauses 21 to 23 inclusive agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 1
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to
Clause 27 agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
.0950
Clauses 28 to 73 inclusive agreed to
On clause 74
The Chairman: We have first government amendment 3c on clause 74.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I propose that Bill C-25 in clause 74 be amended by replacing the French version of lines 1 to 4 on page 22 with the following:
[Translation]
(3) Nul ne peut être reconnu coupable d'une infraction à un règlement administratif pris par le conseil de bande en vertu de la présente loi, ou se voir infliger une peine par suite de sa contravention, sauf s'il est prouvé qu'au mo-
[English]
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: We'll now deal with government amendment 4.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I propose that Bill C-25 in clause 74 be amendment by replacing line 7 and 8 on page 22 with the following:
- stance of the by-law;
- (b) the by-law or a summary of it had been published in a local of community newspaper of
general circulation in the area where the by-law applies; or
- (c) other reasonable steps had been taken to
Clause 74 as amended agreed to
Clauses 75 to 119 inclusive agreed to
Clause 1 agreed to
.0955
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Mr. White: I would like a recorded vote.
Bill C-25 as amended agreed to: yeas 3; nays 2
The Chairman: The question is we've had some amendments. We wouldn't say they're substantial for the purposes of having to get the bill redone.
Mr. Lebel: Des amendements ridicules. They are ridiculous.
The Chairman: We have to decide whether or not we should get the bill reprinted with the amendments included for report stage. So I'll ask whether or not the committee should order a reprint as a working copy for use at report stage.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): We might as well have it all in there for everyone to see.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?
Some hon members: Agreed.
The Chairman: I would like to thank all the members of the committee for their cooperation. I realize it hasn't been a meeting of minds on a lot of the bill. Nevertheless, everyone has conducted themselves very well and has added a lot of important information to the committee.
As well, I want to thank the officials, and certainly the clerk and all here present - Daniel, Paulette. Thank you very much for your hard work on this. I particularly want to thank Daniel for the summary he provided to all members of the committee. It's very helpful and very interesting. It should help those who deal with the bill in subsequent stages.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, what's the timeframe available for preparation of a dissenting report?
The Chairman: There's no such thing. It will now go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for their adoption. If it's adopted and reported to the House by the committee, then we will be subject to report stage. There are 48 hours, at minimum, allowed for the submission of amendments for the report stage. It could be longer.
It may not be called at report stage for a while, so we may have a longer period of time. You have at least 48 hours for the submission of amendments and there you would be stating your dissension to the bill.
If there's nothing further, I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much.