Mr. Woodworth has done a good job of describing the background here. My purpose in raising it is that I think it should be raised where it comes up in any criminal or quasi-criminal statute--something we should advert to as legislators before we move it back to the House for passage.
This is a straight-line, straight-up criminal statute. That's how the government has described this. For example, in the regulations section, regulations can be made regarding the modalities of notification. It would be possible to make a regulation that restricted or enhanced the burden on the citizen--in fact, made it a trick notification on the citizen. All kinds of things can happen, even without the basket clause in paragraph 13(f). Mr. Woodworth points out that our law prevents using regulations to impose criminal burdens on citizens.
Ms. Kane referred to the Fisheries Act, and it is a fact that at the present time, in front of the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations, there are provisions of the regulations that are being looked at for disallowance, precisely because the regulations have been used to create offences under the act.
I can't say that we should never enact this type of basket clause on a regulation-making power. At the time we pass the statute we should be getting the government to confirm that it won't be used to create a new criminal law or a new criminal burden. That's without prejudice to the use of the clause. I mean, the government has to do what the government has to do, but as legislators we have to deal with this.
If they pass the new regulation under this that says a breach of the regulations will constitute a breach of the act, how valid is that? Does a citizen always have to rely on Parliament to take care of this regulatory thing, because there are 1,200 regulatory instruments passed every year?
I'm not moving an amendment. I don't know how to restrict it, but I did want to hear from the government that the use of this clause is intended to be consistent with the way Ms. Kane described it and will not be used to create a new criminal burden on citizens.