REGS Committee Meeting

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

LE COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT D'EXAMEN DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DU SÉNAT ET DE LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 11, 1998

• 0830

The Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:30 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Mr. Derek Lee (Joint Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Our agenda begins with the RCMP. There are several other small items which we can take up later.

SOR/88-361 — ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE REGULATIONS, 1998

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Counsel, can you address the presence of the RCMP regulations on our agenda?

Mr. François-R. Bernier (General Counsel to the Committee): Mr. Chairman, they are on our agenda because the committee wanted them there at every meeting. We are simply complying with that request. Unfortunately we had only the English version of the draft letter to the minister for distribution. It has not yet been signed. There is also a note summarizing the current status of the file, and the areas in which the Solicitor General indicated that there might be changes to the drafting instructions that the committee had previously received.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): I think it would be helpful to the Solicitor General and his staff. If there are no comments on that correspondence, we will move to the next item.

SOR/93-117 — MANITOBA FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1987, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix, p. )

Mr. Bernier: The problem in this case is rather simple: The provinces have been retaining fishing licence fee revenues illegally for many years — in some cases going back to the turn of the century, we are told. The department concedes that the practice is illegal, since these are federal moneys that by right should go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. At this time, the government is exploring its options in terms of remedying the situation.

What is involved here, however, is an illegal administrative practice. There is no statutory instrument at issue, so that even though the illegal practice came to light as a result of our examination of a statutory instrument, the practice itself is not a matter within the mandate of the joint committee. For this reason, there is some difficulty with the committee's pursuing the issue until remedial legislation is introduced in Parliament. On the other hand, without the committee's ongoing involvement, it is quite likely that the matter would simply be forgotten.

In trying to come to grips with these facts, I thought perhaps one possible solution might be for the committee to formally advise the Auditor General of this matter, and then proceed to close its file and rely on the Auditor General to ensure follow-up.

Mr. White: If I understand the letter correctly, the deletion of SOR/98-247 means that these fees are no longer being collected?

Mr. Bernier: No. On the occasion of examining these Manitoba fishery regulations, a mention was made in one reply which we thought was rather curious, and led us to believe that the moneys were not coming back to Ottawa. We asked the question of where those licence fees are going, and were told that they are going to the province. This occurs in practically every province, involving not only Manitoba and, as I say, the practice goes back a great many years. In Manitoba, yes, those fees will no longer be charged, but this practice still represents a vast sum of money.

If you count back to the turn of the century, even at $5 or $10 per fishing licence and permits at $15 or $16, you end up with a considerable amount of money which should be in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and which never made its way there because the practice developed that the provinces would keep the money.

Mr. White: Since it is coming from the taxpayer's pocket in the end, is it worthwhile for the committee to pursue an area which really does not fall within our jurisdiction? Perhaps counsel's suggestion of advising the Auditor General is the best one.

Mr. Wappel: Should we not also let the minister know? I would think that if we intend — and I hate to use the phrase — to blow the whistle and bring in the Auditor General, we should at least give the minister a heads up.

Mr. Bernier: Should we advise him before, or with a copy to him of our letter to the Auditor General?

Mr. Wappel: We should send a different letter directly to the minister, advising the minister that in the course of our investigation, we came across this practice, of which we will be advising the Auditor General, but that we thought the minister should know. We should not send merely a carbon copy of our letter to the Auditor General, no.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): What about a short report to the House, counsel?

Mr. Bernier: Again, we get into this problem of reporting on an administrative practice as opposed to reporting on a statutory instrument. Moreover, the question of jurisdiction arises. Even with a general Order of Reference which is quite broad and generous, there would appear to be some difficulty in fitting in this kind of problem.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): I recall us second guessing departments in connection with the fee levels that they set for certain services. Would this not fall, arguably, within the same general rubric?

Mr. Bernier: Arguably, but anything can be argued.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): There are three options: First is the option to do nothing; second is the option to write to the minister — Mr. White, what your suggestion?

Mr. White: I agreed with the Auditor General's suggestion, but of course, as an opposition member, the next time we are discussing any type of fisheries matter in the house, I could ensure that this matter just pops up there.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Then third, a report to the House. In any case, we would ultimately close our file because it is not the central focus in our mandate.

Mr. Bernier: Perhaps, in terms of choosing a solution, members should focus on which one is most likely to ensure that, at some point, remedial action is taken. The matter is now being explored, and even though they are exploring the options, the only option is really the enactment of a statute of Parliament validating this practice, because otherwise there is a contravention of the Financial Administration Act here. We want a solution that ensures that this is done, so who is the person most likely to be in a position to keep track of this matter?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Any comment in response to counsel's rhetorical question? In the view of the chair, the highest profile statement we could make would be a report to the House. If we add to the volume of correspondence that we produce, we simply add to this pile and someone else's pile, and it may remain at that stage because I do not think we will follow it up further. I tend to think we should prepare a short report, provided we have verified our facts, and recommend in the report that the matter be addressed by the several ministries involved and the Auditor General. Then we will have done our job completely.

Senator Lewis: I move that we do so.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): All right. Counsel, given that we have just come across this collateral provision, do we have enough meat now to put a report together?

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): That is fine, then. So be it.

SOR/91-139 — CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING AGENCY PROCLAMATION, AMENDMENT

SOR/90-477 — CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING AGENCY PROCLAMATION, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p.)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): We will move to the next item, under the heading Reply Unsatisfactory: Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency Proclamation, amendment. Counsel, would you introduce that item?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Rousseau (General Counsel to the Committee): As regards these items, I will start by pointing out that SOR/91-139 makes the amendments promised to the wording of SOR/90-477. With respect to the comments on SOR/91-139 itself, they concern the validity of certain provisions in the proclamation.

Council to the committee wrote the department on October 31, 1995. After several letters of reminder, the department informed us on February 5, 1998, that it was consulting the National Farm Products Marketing Council. A response was received late yesterday afternoon, despite the fact that the department had been advised that the matter would be drawn to the attention of the committee so that the committee could decide to follow up on it. This response from the department also concerns the next two items: SOR/91-315 and SOR/92-271. Obviously, the reply that we received late yesterday afternoon has not yet been translated. Moreover, it deals with complex issues and committee counsel will obviously have to study it before giving an opinion.

For the time being, I think that we need to postpone the consideration of these items to a future meeting of the committee.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): That is easy enough to do.

Mr. White: I should like to make one comment on these files. I noted when I was reviewing these SORs, 91-139, 90-477, 91-315 and 92-271, that we seem constantly to be running into the problem that Frank Claydon, the Deputy Minister, is not responding to letters. That comment relates to all of these SORs.

I accept counsel's recommendation that we should now wait until there is a proper analysis, and obviously that will be after the summer break, but it would seem to me that, at that stage, it will be time for us to start getting heavy and demanding some answers, and perhaps an appearance if there is no substantial reply in what you received last night.

Mr. Rousseau: It is a substantial reply.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): It is clear that Mr. Claydon has referred these matters to an official who has responded. It was not clear from Mr. Claydon's letter, especially since some time had elapsed between our correspondence and Mr. Claydon's earlier reply. That is fine. We will deal with these at a later date after counsel has had an opportunity to analyze the reply.

SOR/89-288 — HARZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): We move then to Hazardous Materials Information Review Regulations, amendment. Counsel?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: With respect to SOR/89-288, the department had promised in 1990 to take steps to amend the Act to correct a difference in the French version that was identified during the study of SOR/89-288. Today, the department is still incapable of saying when this legislative amendment could be tabled in Parliament.

The recommendation that I would make today is that it would perhaps be advisable, in this matter, to suggest that the department make this amendment during the adoption of the next miscellaneous statute law amendment. That could be quicker than waiting for a review of the Hazardous materials Information Review Act.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Has this thing really been around for eight years? Is it possible that the minister is not aware of the item?

Mr. Rousseau: We have never sent a letter to the minister.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Presuming we have not gone beyond some statute of limitations here, would it be appropriate, then, to make the minister aware of the eight years?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: It is an amendment to the French version of the act to make it consistent. It is not a substantive issue, it is a question of ensuring that the two provisions mean the same thing and say the same thing in the same words. It's simple.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Counsel makes the point that the difficulty we have with the regulations is not a 10 on the Richter scale. Since it is not what we regard as substantive, it could simply be pursued in the ordinary course.

Mr. Bernier: Regarding the suggestion that Mr. Rousseau made that the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program be used, there is nothing to say that that suggestion cannot be put to the minister instead of the DIO.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Excellent. Can we do that, then? Can we make the suggestion to the minister?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Good.

SOR/91-500 — NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ELECTIONS FEES TARIFF, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): The next item is under the heading Reconsideration: Northwest Territories Elections Fees Tariff, amendment. Counsel?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The amendments to this tariff that applies in the Northwest Territories were promised by the Chief Electoral Officer.

In his most recent letter however, the Chief Electoral Officer announced that under an agreement between the federal and territorial governments, elections in the Northwest Territories will no longer come under his responsibility. He says therefore that the tariff is no longer necessary. Instead of calling for these amendments, given the circumstances, the committee would simply need to monitor the repeal of this tariff.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is it agreed, then, that this is a reasonable course of action?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is the revocation of the tariff done explicitly by a new regulation? Is that the normal course?

Mr. Rousseau: Yes.

SOR/92-496 — ACTION LOAN REGULATIONS

SOR/95-485 — ACTION LOAN REGULATIONS AMENDMENT

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): The next item on our agenda is Action Loan Regulations.

Mr. Bernier: Given that these regulations had a sunset date of March 31, 1998, there would seem to be little purpose in pursuing amendments to the regulations as this point. With the committee's consent, the file will be closed as soon as the regulations are formally revoked.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/93-332 — ABORIGINAL COMMUNAL FISHING LICENCES REGULATIONS

SOR/94-390 — ABORIGINAL COMMUNAL FISHING LICENCES REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/94-531 — ABORIGINAL COMMUNAL FISHING LICENCES REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/95-106 — ABORIGINAL COMMUNAL FISHING LICENCES REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): The next item is Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations.

Mr. Bernier: The committee may recall that some of its members expressed a particular interest in these regulations. For that reason, we have sought to obtain a reply from the responsible department on a priority basis. Unfortunately, it appears that some prodding may be necessary for this to take place.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): What prods are we considering?

Mr. Bernier: A letter to the minister.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Sure.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. White: From a political perspective, my feeling is that we probably will not get much action from the minister either, but we should try. In making the minister aware that this is going on, can we gently give him some sort of time frame in which we would expect a response?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): What do we normally do, counsel? Do we have a sundial or a clock that runs when we send out letters?

Mr. Bernier: Usually Mr. Wappel is our barometer. The time frame would be in the fall, when Parliament returns.

Mr. White: That is three months from now.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): If it comes back in due course, it would be roughly half a year to a year, would it not?

Mr. Bernier: The date for bringing forward correspondence to a minister on a routine matter would be four months. On other matters, it could be two or three months.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Following four months, there would be a lag before it got back on our agenda, would there not?

Mr. Bernier: Unless, as in a case such as this, members have expressed a particular interest in a file. Then it is brought back earlier.

Mr. White: I am expressing a great interest in this file. I would be quite interested in asking the minister to reply by the beginning of the fall session, if others members are in agreement.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/93-348P.S.S.R.B. REGULATIONS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1993

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): The next item is P.S.S.R.B. Regulations.

Mr. Bernier: Section 6 of these regulations gives the board a discretion to reduce any deadline prescribed in its own rules. The committee thought this was overly generous. The board then agreed to include a requirement that the concerned parties be formally notified whenever the board exercises that discretion and reduces a prescribed deadline.

The committee was still not entirely clear that there is a real need for the discretion in the first place. This is explained in my letter of June 27.

As can be seen from Mr. Tarte's reply of March 21, 1997, the board is rather adamant that they require this discretion, although there is still no convincing explanation for this need.

On the other hand, section 6 is undoubtedly intra vires as it stands, and once amended to require notification of the parties concerned, it could be seen as satisfactory. Inasmuch as the board attaches great importance to keeping this provision, and given that with the promised amendment there is no longer any overriding objection that can be made, counsel suggests that it is open to the committee to accept Mr. Tarte's reply as satisfactory.

Otherwise, another letter would be sent asking the board to explain how the changes which the committee had suggested would impair its ability to function effectively. It is up to the committee, really.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Would it be the view of counsel that what is there now is, on balance and taken in a broader perspective, reasonably fair to the parties who would appear before the board?

Mr. Bernier: Yes. It is not optimum, but given that there would now be a requirement that they be notified whenever the board changes a prescribed deadline, that would seem to meet, to my mind, the minimum requirements of fairness and due process.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): It has wings, in other words.

Mr. Bernier: Little wings.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Are we agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/89-41 — PROCUREMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULATIONS

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): The next item is Procurement Review Board Regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Several points regarding these regulations were originally raised. The Procurement Review Board was dissolved in 1995. Only point 6 in the 1992 letter remains pertinent. It involved determining if the Governor in Council had the authority under the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act to extend the application of the Public Service Superannuation Act to the members of the Board.

The department's argument stating that the Board was nevertheless included in the definition of public service in the PSSA is sound.

So even if the Governor in Council did not have the authority, there are, in fact, no longer any practical reasons for pursuing the discussion. If the committee agrees, this item can be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is there any objection to that suggestion? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): Colleagues, I must leave the chair and the acting joint chairman will take over. I must attend a short signing ceremony across the street. Mr. White will continue in the chair until the end of the meeting.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White) in the Chair.

SOR/94 - 384 — PENSION BENEFIT STANDARDS REGULATIONS

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): The next item on the agenda is Pension Benefit Standards Regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Committee counsel asked under what authority this amendment could apply to the employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation effective January 1, 1992, that is more than 27 months prior to the coming into effect of the amendment. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions implicitly recognized that there was no legislative authority and promised to delete the words effective January 1, 1992. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions was asked to confirm that the retroactive provision had not been prejudicial to certain persons. The Superintendent provided this confirmation and explained why that is the case. If the committee is satisfied, all that remains to be done is to ensure that the promised amendment is made.

[English]

Mr. White: I am seeing nods of consent from members. Are we agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/95-155 — SMALL BUSINESS LOANS REGULATIONS, 1993, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p.)

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): The next item is Small Business Loans Regulations, 1993.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Amendments were made to the provisions of these regulations. These amendments establish a method for calculating the maximum rate of interest applicable to eligible loans under the Small Business Loans Program.

Committee counsel noted that this amendment repealed the former method of calculation as of March 21, 1995, but that the new method of calculation would apply only after March 31, 1995. In other words, for 10 days, there was no method of calculation in the regulations. The department acknowledged the problem and accepted to take steps to have Parliament legislate a solution. Committee counsel will continue to monitor this item and keep the committee informed.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Counsel, I notice that the last line of the November 5, 1997, letter from the assistant deputy minister states that: As per your suggestion, in the next statute law amendment legislation, this problem will be repaired. Are we satisfied that the department is well aware of the problem? Does the minister need to be notified as well?

Mr. Rousseau: That is not necessary at this point in time.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-447 — ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PUBLIC COMLAINTS COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr.White): The next item is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission Rules of Practice.

Mr. Bernier: The outstanding matter here relates to service of documents. The current regulation provides that a document may be served by leaving it with an adult employed at the principal office of the person being served. The office in question is said to be that set out in any document filed during the proceeding. Mr. Schmidt suggested that this should refer to an office set out in a document filed by the person being served, inasmuch as a party other than the person being served may well have misstated the business address in its own documents, and other parties should not be able to rely on this for service purposes.

The only authoritative source of information as to the exact business address of the person should be a document filed by that person, rather than a document filed by third parties. If, as stated by Mr. Delage, the party being served has not produced any document with their business address thereon, so be it. The person should then be served personally, or at their residence, in accordance with the other provisions of section 6. We believe this matter should be pursued.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Any comments from members?

Senator Lewis: That is a good suggestion.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): I should like to clarify that. I highlighted the paragraph in the December 2, 1997, letter from Pierre Delage in which he argues, from a practical perspective, exactly what you just explained. If they have a range of documents available and there is not one filed by the person to be served, then is it unreasonable for them to look through the other documents and choose an address?

Mr. Bernier: We must start from the proposition here that we are talking about service. Obviously, the purpose of service in legal proceedings is to ensure that a party is made aware of certain things. We must also remember that we start from the proposition generally that service means personal service, that is, in hand, to the person.

Generally, as in this case, the law will provide for, and grant authority to provide for other methods of service. In this case, those other methods are: leaving a copy with any adult residing at the person's residence, or leaving it with an adult who is at the place of business of that person.

With that as a backdrop, Mr. Delage is arguing the following: namely, what if no document produced by the party being served contains a business address? My answer is that you would then revert to the normal procedure, which is either personal service, or having it served on a person who is not a child — that is, on an adult — at the person's residence. It does not leave a party bereft of any method of service. It does ensure, however, that if a third party files a document and includes a business address that is not the correct one, we do not end up with a person allegedly being served in compliance with the regulation at an incorrect business address because the party who filed the document was not aware of the correct address. Technically, that person must then be considered to have been served because they were served. It was left at their neighbour's business with an adult. The fact that they never did business at that address becomes irrelevant.

Mr. Wappel: I seem to recall in practice that there is a difference between service of an originating document, which gives notice to a party that something is happening against them, and service of documents within the proceeding after the party has been notified.

On page 2 of the letter of December 2, 1997, the last paragraph states: In our view, this would unduly restrict the way in which documents filed during the proceedings could be used.

My question is: Does section 6 deal with service of documents during proceedings, or does it deal with service of an originating notice? There is nothing there to tell us the answer, as far as I can see. I would say that if this section is dealing with originating documents, then it should be personal service, and one should be very careful not to use the opposing party's document for the very reasons counsel has set forth. If it is service of documents within a proceeding after the originating notice has been given to the party, then section 6 is sufficient.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): This is during the proceedings?

Mr. Wappel: Yes. If it is during the proceedings, then the person already knows that there is a lawsuit and the documents would have been served. Notice that counsel is mentioned in paragraph (a). There are other documents that are involved, but the person is already aware that there is a lawsuit against him.

I am not entirely sure if that is service within the proceedings. The point you make is as important as if it were an originating notice.

Mr. DeVillers: It cannot apply to the originating notice because it says during the proceeding. The originating notice does not factor during the proceeding; its place is at the commencement of the proceeding.

Mr. Wappel: Is this not simply, then, how to serve within a proceeding so that the person is already well aware that a proceeding has occurred and is taking place against them?

Mr. Bernier: We will verify that. Section 6(2) simply states — and, obviously, we must look at the broader context — that a document may be served. It does not refer particularly to documents during the proceedings.

I do not dispute that that difference in treatment may exist as a matter of law. However, I am not quite certain I understand the purpose of making it. For example, proceedings have been initiated against me. I have been served and I am aware that proceedings have been initiated. Some other party wishes to make application to vary a deadline for the filing of something. I am entitled to appear on this matter. During the proceedings, the filing party uses a business address in the document that they file which is not my correct business address. Surely the result, whether or not it is an originating document — and it may be during the proceedings — would still be that I remain unaware of their application to vary the deadline. Consequently, I am deprived of my opportunity to make representations on that motion.

Mr. Wappel: In practical terms, if that actually occurs and the party aggrieved can show that they were never properly advised, the proceedings are set aside in a court application because the person never received proper notice.

However, once you serve someone, they are aware of the proceedings and they have the opportunity to file documents indicating their address for service. There are people who do not want to be served with legal documents. To require that they be served personally would impose extreme difficulty on litigants in many instances.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Therefore, if we can get some clarification, we may pursue this with varying degrees of vigour.

Mr. DeVillers: I think the letter of September 24 raises the point that it should be restricted to the document served by that person. If a person chooses to be served in some strange place, that is their prerogative. However, if a third party submits an erroneous address, the person should not be deemed to have been served at that address. The September 24, 1997 letter sets it out. If the amendment were restricted to filed by the person being served, that would address the problem.

Mr. Bernier: Which is the only issue, but I thought Mr. Wappel did not necessarily agree with that.

Mr. Wappel: Let us get further clarification. For example, a person could be served but does not file any documents. You could obtain an affidavit from my employee, saying that he or she works for me, and that I come to work at 9:00 in the morning in Room 115, East Block.

That is an affidavit duly sworn under oath. I do not see why that could not be used, under normal circumstances, to establish an address for service. It is not the document of the person served because the person served is not interested in cooperating. There are nuances which require further clarification.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): After some discussion, we have ended up with two opposing positions. We need some clarification. We will pursue that and bring this item back at an early opportunity.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Devillers agrees with the position in the September 24 letter. Mr. Wappel would not pursue it unless the document is also an originating document. Only to that extent would he agree.

Mr. Wappel: I am only saying that in the real world of law, it would be practical to use a third party's sworn affidavit of the whereabouts of a party as the basis upon which to serve someone, in certain circumstances. I do not accept the reasoning that we would not be able to serve a document on that basis. You are right that we could always revert to personal service.

Mr. Bernier: Service is allowed on counsel, or at the residence.

Mr. DeVillers: In practice, in the great majority of litigation there is counsel, and documents are served at counsel's office in any event.

Mr. Wappel: We are dealing with a very limited number of cases.

Senator Lewis: An address given by a third party may be erroneous.

Mr. Bernier: With regard to the residence of the person being served, there is no mention in 6.(2)(b) of the residence of the person as set out in any document filed by anyone. That is only for the business address. That is presumably because we say the residence must be the actual residence of the person, as opposed to simply whatever residence has been set out in a document. Why, then, is the business office not the actual business office of the person, as opposed to whatever a third party may say? If it is good enough to take the business address set out in any document filed in court, why is it not good enough to take the address of the residence in any document filed in court? Yet, they do not.

Mr. Wappel: That is a good question. Pursue it.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): We will move on now to “Progress (?)”.

SOR/94-419 — CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Counsel, have we made progress on this?

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Sulzenko's letter indicates that it may be a little while before the statutory amendments promised to the committee are made. We have a reform project in various phases. Phase 2 is nearing conclusion. Then, of course, we are part of Phase 3.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): I note that the letter of April 6 says that they will have a memorandum to cabinet issued in the spring. Have they notified us that that has happened?

Mr. Bernier: I believe the memorandum to cabinet follows Phase 2.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Which they said was winding up in April, and that cabinet will be issued on it this spring. We are just about out of that spring.

Mr. Bernier: But our amendments will come as part of Phase 3.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): I understand that. I was looking at the time frame. Are we moving along at the pace they expected?

Mr. Bernier: We can ask.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Thank you. We will move on to eply Satisfactory.

SOR/96-488 — PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE ACT

SOR/96-489 — PROCLAMATION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE AND PRESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS AND DESIGN OF A TWO DOLLAR PRECIOUS METAL COIN

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, the interpretation put forth by the Royal Canadian Mint to justify the adoption of the proclamation has merit. Mr. Rousseau's interpretation is just as plausible, as Ms. Nadeau acknowledged. A legislative solution was provided in Bill C-41 which was tabled on May 7. The follow-up will be ensured by the legislative counsel.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): Very well. We will move on to Promised Action Deferred.

SOR/93-134 — MANUFACTURING AND STORAGE OF PATENTED MEDICINES REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernier: In light of the explanation given by Mr. Sulzenko, it would appear that the committee has little choice but to wait for the outcome of the European Union complaint against Canada. Progress will be monitored.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): We will move on to Action Promised.

SOR/91-428 — NORTHWEST TERRITORIES FISHERY REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/91-481 — NORTHWEST TERRITORIES FISHERY REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/93-63 — NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/93-515 — CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION APPLICATION FOR DEPOSIT INSURANCE BY-LAW

SOR/93-516 — CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATIN DEPOSIT INSURANCE POLICY BY-LAW

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/94-276 — CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/94-277 — DEFENCE SERVICES PENSION CONTINUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/95-569 — CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/95-570 — CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

Mr. Bernier: Dealing with all of the instruments under that heading as a block, Mr. Chairman, some 26 amendments are promised in relation to those instruments.

SI/97-24 — SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL BAR ORDER HUMANITAST

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/92-134 — REDPATH SPECIALTY PRODUCTS SUCRALOSE REMISSION ORDER

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/92-584 — FOREIGN EXTRATERRITORIAL MEASURES (UNITED STATES) ORDER, 1992

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/92-665 — NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR TREATMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/94-30 — PATENT RULES, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/96-457 — P.S.S.R.B. REGULATIONS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1993, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/96-544 — DISCRETIONARY INTEREST BY-LAW

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/97-179 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FAMILY SUPPORT ORDERS AND AGREEMENTS GARNISHMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/97-255 — CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/97-312 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SMALL BUSINESS LOANS REGULATIONS, 1993 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/97-381 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/97-499 — PROCLAMATION AMENDING A PROCLAMATION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE AND PRESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS AND DESIGNS OF A THREE HUNDRED DOLLAR, A ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLAR, A SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLAR AND A THIRTY DOLLAR PRECIOUS METAL COINS

SOR/97-98 — PROCLAMATION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE AND PRESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS AND DESIGNS OF A THREE HUNDRED DOLLAR, A ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLAR, A SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLAR AND A THIRTY DOLLAR PRECIOUS METAL COINS

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/97-502 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

SOR/98-91 — ORDER AMENDING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS ASSESSMENT AND TESTING FEES ORDER

(For text of documents, see appendix p. )

With regard to the instruments listed under the heading of Action Taken, they include 20 enactments made at the request of the standing joint committee, as well as one revocation and two statutory amendments.

In this instance, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to draw attention to one instrument under Action Taken: that is, SOR/97-381, which are the regulations amending the statutory instruments regulations. This amendment revokes the exemption from publication previously given to standing orders of the Commissioner of the RCMP. From now on, any such standing order will be required to be published in the Canada Gazette, as is any other piece of subordinate legislation. I note that this file was initiated in 1975, so it took 22 years to achieve the desired result.

There are also 84 instruments submitted without comment.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. White): We have been very productive today in getting through the material.

The committee adjourned.