Skip to main content

REGS Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at

Previous day publication Next day publication

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 6 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 7, 2001

The Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:35 a.m. to elect the Joint Chairman, House of Commons, and for the review of statutory instruments.


Mr. Jean-Michel Roy, Joint Clerk of the Committee (House of Commons): Honourable senators and members, I see a quorum.


Pursuant to the House of Commons Standing Orders, the first item on the agenda is the nomination of the a joint chairperson for the House of Commons.


I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Harris: I move the nomination of Mr. Werner Schmidt in the position of Joint Chair of this committee.

Mr. Roy: It is moved by Mr. Harris that Mr. Schmidt do take the chair of this committee as Joint Chair. Do you adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Roy: I declare Mr. Schmidt duly elected as Joint Chair of this committee, and I invite him to take the chair.

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette and Mr. Werner Schmidt (Joint Chairmen) in the Chair.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Thank you, members, for that election, and I thank Mr. Harris for the nomination.

You have all received an agenda. We will start with Bill C-27.


Mr. François-R. Bernier, General Counsel to the Committee: In her letter of May 3, the Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledges the defective drafting of the French version of section 4 of the new Canada National Parks Act and undertakes to have it corrected in a future miscellaneous statute amendment bill. That commitment will be monitored in the usual way.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): There being no discussion, we will move on.


Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, the provision of the Air Transportation Regulations at issue here is section 74(1). Both the letter from Ms Robson and that of the minister indicate that, although the agency is now of the view that this section is intra vires the act, the section will in fact be revoked.

I suppose a letter should be sent to the agency at this time to ascertain what progress has been made.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Do we all agree with that suggestion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.



(For text of documents, see Appendix A , p.6A:1)

Mr. Bernier: The issue here, Mr. Chairman, is the validity of the practice of setting fees for various things under the National Parks Act pursuant to the general ministerial fee-setting authority granted by the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, rather than pursuant to the authority granted by the National Parks Act itself.

Section 4 of the National Parks Act, which is repeated in the new legislation, gives all Canadians a right to use and enjoy our national parks subject to the National Parks Act and regulations. Inasmuch as the imposition of the fee amounts to a restriction of that right, it has been the committee's position that the clause "subject to this act and the regulations" in section 4 of the act precludes imposing fees pursuant to a statute other than the National Parks Act.

In a letter dated December 9, 1999, the minister sought to establish that the legislative history of the relevant legislation showed that Parliament had always intended fees to be established outside the regulatory framework of the National Parks Act. The arguments invoked in that letter are dealt with in the chairmen's letter of October 20, 2000, which is before the committee. The minister replies to this letter that:

In light of the Committee's view that sections 8 and 9 of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act are general in application and, therefore, cannot apply to the national parks of Canada ... I have been advised that the best way to respond to the issue you raise would be to implement the authorities contained in sections 23 and 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act to establish fees related to the above-mentioned Regulations.

With regard to this reply, it should be noted in the first place that sections 23 and 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act are quite as general as sections 8 and 9 of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. They are equally general.

More to the point, the issue here is not one of choosing between a specific grant of legislative authority and a general grant of legislative authority. The issue is that section 4 of the National Parks Act clearly states that any limits on the rights of Canadians to access, use and enjoy national parks can only be imposed in regulations made under that act.

Quite simply, the position of the committee is that section 4 precludes the imposition of fees pursuant to other legislation, whether this be the Department of Canadian Heritage Act or the Parks Canada Agency Act.

In closing, I should emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that the National Parks Act grants the required authority for the fees that the minister wishes to impose. Under that act, however, those fees must be imposed by means of regulations. The government does not wish to proceed by way of regulations made by the Governor in Council; it wishes to have the minister decide what the fees are, without the need for any regulation.

The department may well consider that regulations are an inconvenient way of setting fees, but Parliament, when it enacted section 4 of the National Parks Act and when in the same legislation it gave authority to impose fees by regulations, clearly decided that that is the way fees should be imposed for the use of national parks.

If members wish to maintain the position of the committee, I would suggest that a further letter go to the minister.

Ms Barnes: Could our letter not only state our current position, but also that if the minister wishes to have ministerial discretion then what would be required would be an amendment to the act itself to allow the minister to do that. If the minister wants to do that, get the statutory authority for it, not just direct her back to doing the regulations. It is her choice, but let us get some empowerment of that.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Good observation. Any further discussion? Do we need a motion to that effect? We will move in that direction.


Mr. Bernier: When this file was last considered, Mr. Chairman, the committee decided that further delays in resolving its concerns were not acceptable and it requested a response from the minister by April 30. The committee decided that, should that response not disclose sufficient progress, it might or would report to both Houses. The requested reply simply has not been received.

Mr. Macklin: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, we therefore proceed in the manner suggested.

Mr. Bernier: That manner being to draft a report.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, again, the joint committee was not satisfied with the government response to its Report No. 66, and asked that the minister provide a full and detailed response before the end of May. No response has been received.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Same response?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what you mean by "same response."

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): A letter to that effect.

Mr. Wappel: We reported this to the House. A report was made, and a perfunctory answer was given by the minister's office, by the minister ultimately. We wrote to the minister indicating that we thought it was a perfunctory response and that we wanted a full, complete and comprehensive response.

I am not sure of the procedure, but I do not think we can report on a report. What we must do here is call the deputy minister as a witness before our committee and ask him or her to explain the rationale for the response and to answer our appropriate questions. This is a dispute between the committee and the minister on the interpretation of an answer. The minister presumably thinks it was perfectly acceptable to answer in the way that it was answered. I am not sure that reporting will do anything.

We ought to ask the deputy minister why such a perfunctory response was put forward to a comprehensive report of a joint committee of Parliament.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Are there any other comments on Mr. Wappel's point? I think it is a good point.

We have two options: We can write a letter to the Minister indicating that a perfunctory response was given and that it was not acceptable to the committee; the other option is ask the deputy to appear before the committee.

What is your pleasure?

Ms Barnes: Any request right now is essentially giving them until fall.

Mr. Wappel: That is correct. We could not prepare a report in time to file it anyway. Either way we are looking at September or October.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Do you have a recommendation on that?

Mr. Bernier: Not really, Mr. Chairman. I am just wondering if the deputy minister is the correct person here. This was a comprehensive government response made in the name of the government by a minister of the Crown. I am not sure how far one would go with a deputy minister.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Bernier, I have a twofold reason for suggesting the deputy minister. We have done this research before. We cannot subpoena a minister, as I recall it. If we simply send a letter, as we have done many times previously to have ministers show up, they get around to it when they get around to it. It could be next May or indeed a year from now before the scheduling assistant for a particular minister - portfolios may change shortly - gets around to agreeing to having the minister, who is very busy and as such cannot take time for this committee, to come before the committee.

The deputy minister has no such defence. We can insist that the deputy minister attend here. If the deputy minister chooses not to do so, we can subpoena the deputy minister. I am presuming that, next to the minister, the deputy minister would know the most about this file or would be able to get the most information about this file.

My experience has been that when we insist on a deputy minister showing up, generally speaking, the letter gets answered before the minister is scheduled to appear before the committee.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): I agree that technically the minister is the one who should attend here; however, in practical terms, Mr. Wappel is saying that we could make the deputy appear.

What is the pleasure of honourable members?

Senator Bryden: What do we do if the deputy does not come? We have gone through this before. We know it is not very easy. Would another approach be to report that the minister was invited to attend to explain this matter but refused to do so? That would be more effective than a subpoena, I would think.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Which way would you like to go, deputy minister or minister, a report to the House of Commons, or a demand to the minister to come?

Senator Bryden: I do not know whether we should rely on something that ultimately is not much more effective in relation to a deputy minister than it is in relation to a minister. To some extent, our real threat in relation to ministers and so on is that the Parliament to which they are responsible becomes aware of the fact that they are not cooperating.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Let us have a show-of-hands vote on this. All those in favour of having the minister respond to us?

All those in favour of having the minister appear before the committee?

That is the way we will go then - we will ask the minister to appear before the committee to explain why he did not send us a good answer.

Senator Finestone: Should we say to the minister that, in the event that he cannot attend here, he can send his deputy?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): That gives him an option. He must attend here; if he does not, we will report to the House of Commons.

Senator Bryden: Either that, or he must send someone who is satisfactory to us. That happens all the time. We are not going to say that. That is fine with me.

In the meantime, could we revert to the previous item on which we decided that we will report?

I do not know the procedure that is followed here. Do you notify the department that that is what you are doing?

Mr. Bernier: Are you referring to a situation where a report is to be made?

Senator Bryden: Yes.

Mr. Bernier: Not usually, unless it is a disallowance. In the case of a disallowance report, the committee usually gives some indication to the department. On a regular report of the committee, the proceedings are available; if there is an interest, they can presumably inform themselves.

Senator Bryden: The last sentence reads:

Should it be concluded that sufficient progress towards resolution of its concerns has not been made, it is at this time the inclination of the Committee to report its concerns to the Houses.

Therefore, the next thing that the recipient of this letter hears is that this has been reported to the House.

Mr. Bernier: The committee decided to impose a deadline. It asked the minister for a progress report and the minister has not furnished that report.

Senator Bryden: The committee did not write the letter. They signed it.

Senator Moore: The problem is the word "inclination."

Senator Bryden: My concern is that reporting this to Parliament is a pretty significant thing to do. If we do that and nothing else happens, what is the first indication to the recipient of this letter that the committee is acting on its inclination?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): In my view, they have been appropriately notified. The answer was to have been received by April 30, 2001. If it is not received, the committee is inclined to report its concerns to the House. It seems to me that the minister knows he has not responded. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for the committee to report, if it so decides, and we have just decided to do so.

Senator Bryden: I am not talking about notice. I am talking about information. If we have decided to do something, should we not tell the person that we will report it?

Senator Nolin: Once again, the French version is coming to the rescue of the English version. In French it is perfectly clear. Look at the French version and act upon it.

Mr. Bernier: I should like to make the point that we draft letters to be signed by the chairmen to reflect committee decisions. In the discussion at the last meeting, there was no clear decision by the committee that we will report if there is insufficient progress. I was instructed to raise this as a possibility, which is why I used the word "inclination."

Senator Bryden: I want to take one more kick at this. That is exactly my point. We had an inclination and we told them that. We have now acted on that inclination; we are inclined to fall one way as opposed to another. Can we not advise them that they are being reported?

Mr. Bernier: If the committee wants to do this, we will draft the appropriate letter.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): People need a few weeks to act upon a notice. They will have the whole summer to address this. If they do not, we will do the report in the fall.

Senator Bryden: I am just saying that out of courtesy we should tell them what is happening.




Mr. Bernier: In this case, Mr. Chairman, counsel have been trying for some time to obtain a reply to correspondence that goes back to 1996-97 from the National Farm Products Council, obviously without success.

The suggestion is that the chair deal directly with the responsible minister to try to get those responses.

Mr. Wappel: I do not understand Mr. Bernier's recommendation. We have written directly to deputy ministers who have ignored our correspondence. The deputy minister should be called here to explain why our correspondence has been ignored. I do not think we need to involve the minister at this point. This is a matter of courtesy to a committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. I think the deputy minister should be here to explain why two different deputy ministers have chosen to ignore our correspondence. This is the kind of thing that angers me about some people in the bureaucracy who do not treat this committee with the respect with which it should be treated. I think that in this case we should call the deputy minister.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Is that a motion?

Mr. Wappel: Yes.

Senator Finestone: I second that motion.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Bernier: Eventually, the responsibility for answering correspondence fell to the Farm Products Council. I take it then that would be an invitation to the executive director of the National Farm Products Council and the current Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Watson?

Mr. Wappel: I would like to see Mr. Watson here. If you can suggest other people who could help us get the answers to our correspondence, perhaps they could attend as well.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Under law, to whom do they report? If the executive director reports directly to the minister, he should be invited. If he reports to the deputy minister, then we invite only the deputy minister. It depends upon the line of command. The director might report also to the deputy minister. The boss must ensure that all directors are doing their jobs and must set the example for that. It is important to have the responsible people appear before us.

Senator Finestone: Is Mel Cappe responsible for managing all the DMs? Do you not think it is time that Mr. Mel Cappe knew of the existence of this committee and that his deputy ministers are not following orders? Yesterday, when dealing with a particular ministry, I was not satisfied with a response and said that we would take the matter to this committee. That suggestion was responded to by a shrug of the shoulders, as if to say, "So what?" That is not an adequate answer and it is time that deputy ministers realized that this committee functions on a serious basis. It may be time that Mr. Cappe is advised that we have been frustrated since 1980.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): If we are not successful when we have the DM before us, we can pursue the matter with Mr. Cappe.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Let us take step one before proceeding to step two. The sentiment of the committee is pretty obvious.

Let us move on to the next item.


Mr. Bernier: For the reasons set out in the note, Mr. Chairman, counsel suggests that this file could be closed by the committee.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Is it agreed that we close this file?

Hon. Members: Agreed.



(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 6B:1)

Mr. Jacques Rousseau, Legal Advisor: In this file, the regulation adopted pursuant to the Broadcasting Act provides that if licence fees are not paid up by the deadline, the licence holder must pay interest as well as administrative charges, under the regulation on interest and administrative costs adopted pursuant to the Public Finance Administration Act.

The authority to impose administrative charges under the Broadcasting Act has been questioned by committee advisors. However, as explained in the letter dated January 13, 2000, addressed to the CRTC, the advisors are of the opinion that licence holders are under the obligation to pay administrative charges even though this is not mentioned in the 1997 regulation on CRTC broadcasting licence fees.

The challenged provision could thus be eliminated without changing anything at all insofar as the obligation to pay administrative charges is concerned. In its July 28, 2000, the CRTC recognizes that committee councels' point of view is well-founded and states that these regulations will be reviewed as a consequence of this.

So your task is to follow up on the file until the relevant amendments have been made, and legal advisors will keep the committee abreast of progress.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Is this the last correspondence we received, dated July 2000? We have not touched this file for a year? This is the last letter I have here; I don't believe there are any others.

Mr. Rousseau: In the last letter we received from the CRTC we had a confirmation recognizing the accuracy of our point of view. The file followed its normal course and is today before the committee. There has not been any correspondence since.

Senator Finestone: Did they send it?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): No, they have not done anything for a year. I understand the good will. Everyone could write to us to say that they agree with us, and do nothing, ad infinitum. However, the fact that a year has passed casts a different light on the good will in question.

Mr. Rousseau: So in the next letter we are going to write to the CRTC, should we indicate that the committee expects that this be done as promptly as possible?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): No, not as quickly as possible, but that it be done when we return.

Mr. Rousseau: It is very difficult to set that kind of deadline. The senior legal advisor could probably tell you more about this.

Mr. Bernier: I think that the committee must be careful when it sets deadlines.


The danger is this - and we have seen it this morning: You fix deadlines, and they are ignored. This creates a bad habit. I have a dog, and I never give my dog a "come" command unless I know it will be obeyed and I am in a position to enforce the "come" command. Another simile would be the boy who cried wolf too often. I think the committee has to be a little careful about setting these firm deadlines, without knowing whether they are realistic or not, that are then disobeyed or not respected. I do not think that contributes to increasing respect for the parliamentary committee.

This is just a word of caution. I am not saying it cannot be done here. Of course, the committee can set whatever it wants. However, I think I should sound that word of caution.

Senator Bryden: I take it you do not say to your dog, "I am inclined to tell you to come"?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): You have made your point.


Mr. Lanctôt: To answer this comment, when we set a date and know that there is a possible sanction downstream, and what it is, that has a lot of impact. If we do not know what to do afterwards, nothing is accomplished.

Mr. Bernier: We have seen it in the past; the problem is that the committee sets a date and announces what it will do if its expectations are not met with results. When the file is brought before the committee once again and nothing has been done, the members around the table on that day are not necessarily the same ones as those who were there when the decision was taken. Or the file is no longer seen in the same light, or not perceived to be as urgent. Finally, the action that had been referred to is not implemented and nothing comes out of the process. It does not help things when this happens too often.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Who is the authority behind these regulations? We have only been in touch with legal services. Does Heritage Canada review the CRTC regulations? How does it work? Does the CRTC issue regulations itself? There must surely be a political authority somewhere.

Mr. Rousseau: The Broadcasting Act gives the CRTC the power to adopt these regulations.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): So the final authority in the matter would be the chair of the CRTC?

Mr. Rousseau: I imagine so.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): We only wrote to the person who is technically responsible within the CRTC. We have not spoken to the higher authority of the CRTC. We did not advise the chair or the commissioner.

Mr. Rousseau: I think that up until now we began by saying: "Listen, you cannot do this." During the exchange of correspondence we proposed another solution to them, which was that they could amend this regulation. In any case, licence holders will have to pay the administrative costs you wish to impose. They have accepted that we were right on this point. Now, the amendment will follow. As you can see, they are not referring to a single regulation, they want to review all of their regulations. This may take a bit longer. Up until now, although things have not been moving very fast, they have unfolded relatively normally.


Mr. Macklin: Mr. Chairman, obviously, I am new to this committee; but I am getting a couple of signals I do not particularly like. One is, why should I bother coming to a committee if we intend to do nothing? The second is that if we are just going to huff and puff and never put any teeth into our positions then why do we write?

Let us go back to this issue that we have before us. First, do we have authority or do we not have authority? If we do not have authority, then I guess we should not be there. If we do have authority, then why are we not setting deadlines? It strikes me that there is common courtesy here. If we set a deadline and a department cannot meet it, they can write us and explain. We just seem to be ignored.

I find that frustrating. Quite frankly, I do not want to be on this committee if we are not going to take action. We are here to do a job and we should get the job done.

Senator Bryden: Mr. Chairman, can I participate in this?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Please, Senator Bryden.

Senator Bryden: I agree with what you are saying, to a large extent, when it comes to actually setting a deadline and making sure that it is adhered to.

At issue here is the fact that in a system as large and as complicated as the one we have you cannot set 30-day deadlines in order to get action on changing a regulation. You cannot set 30-day deadlines to do almost anything because of all of the things that are involved in getting things done.

I am also new to the committee, in that I have been here for almost one year. I have gone through some of the same frustrations. In many instances, the staff, under the direction of the committee and working cooperatively with people who want to do the right thing but take some time to complete all the processes and get the issues before the cabinet committees and so on, accomplishes a great deal. They also are quite frequently frustrated. If we are going to set deadlines, we have to set realistic deadlines.

Mr. Macklin: Fair enough.

Senator Bryden: An automatic six-month deadline is not needed on every single issue. If some issue could impact on citizenry within a month or a week, then the deadline may be shorter and more urgent than another one. Deadlines need to be set almost on a case-by-case basis. I suggest at some point when the staff has little to do that we could develop a structure setting out the instances when we do certain things.

I agree with you 100 per cent - having seen some of the things that have happened here even this morning - that if one of our deadlines is ignored we should act on it. If we impose deadlines many times, they get to be old hat. A deadline notification to a minister or a deputy minister from this committee should be very significant. We should have explored all other possibilities, so that they know they must either show up or be reported or face disallowance.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): I have been here for a number of years and we probably all have the same feeling. I agree with Senator Bryden about putting a deadline on every document that does not come the way we would like it.

The majority are compliant. Those that come before us are those who have not complied.

In this instance, I raised the question but I was not proposing to set a date. I was just saying that we should set a time frame, thinking of reporting in the fall about the progress. These matters have financial implications. Also, the Auditor General can examine this and say that there is regulatory authority to impose these fees if it is not done correctly. Regulations must be valid before a company can be billed for fees.

I suggest that we ask them to give us the good news in the fall because we have been waiting for nearly a year for this change in their regulation.

This is for our staff instruction. If we do not get any action by the time we come back - I will likely be here because I like to overview this process - then we will act on this. We will not just let it go. Give them notice that we will revisit this when we come back in the fall. That gives them more than 90 days to respond.

Mr. Macklin: I am troubled by the apparent feeling that our correspondence is unimportant and undeserving of a response. There is a question of simple courtesy, if nothing else, to respond by saying that our request is unreasonable or that they require six months or nine months or some other appropriate time period within which to amend the appropriate regulation.

That is the general kind of response that seems to be missing here. There should be reasonable relationships between the committee and the particular departments. I find that very frustrating, and I understand why members of this committee express at times a sense of frustration and a need for some kind of hammer to evoke even the common courtesy of a response. A response could be satisfactory if it simply suggests a new deadline in answer to our suggestion. That would make me feel better about the committee operation in relationship with the departments.

Ms Barnes: Most of my intended comments have made been. I would echo Mr. Macklin's thoughts.


Mr. Lanctôt: I agree with you. This frustration arises at every hearing. I do not know if it is the same in other legislatures. Why not change what does not work? During the whole session I have felt that this did not work.

So I would like us to hold a new hearing to talk to each other and determine what the committee wants to do. Let us set a general framework, let us give ourselves a protocol. For years now, our legal advisor has had one way of doing things. But there is a new Parliament. He is here, he helps us enormously, but this committee wants something different.

Dow we have guidelines for the next round? Do we have a reply to propose? Do we have deadlines to meet? We could put together some kind of guidelines. When a file is of lesser importance, we could have a six-month deadline. A three-month deadline would be a quick way of obtaining a reply in a given file.

I would like the committee to hold a meeting to set the rules of the game which we will follow for each file. We have these frustrations at every hearing and we probably lose between 15 and 30 minutes talking about our frustrations. If we settle the issue once and for all and create a procedural framework that suits us, we will not be talking about it again. If we give them a year, we give them a year. This would be the only way to make progress.


The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): With all due respect, this committee does exist under the regulations of Parliament. It does have orders of reference. It does have procedures. There are three things that we should perhaps do. Number one, let us review what the committee is really all about. We may need to set aside time at another meeting to do that. Perhaps we could make some changes then. That is not the purpose of today's meeting.

I think the idea is a good one. We will work together with staff on that so that we are all aware of what happens here.

Mr. Bernier: In the fall, we can have an off-the-record meeting.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): We can address these frustrations so that we do not have to keep our eyes on each one of these items.

Senator Finestone: That is a very good idea. After two years on this committee, as much as I enjoy it, I am getting frustrated.

I would like to add two things to the points you just raised. Number one, we need a three- or five-year view of what has been accomplished, the dossiers that are outstanding and the number of years that they have been on the books. That will give us an overview as to the accomplishments and as to what is outstanding.

Second, I absolutely am of the view - and perhaps we can discuss this - that this committee should have a direct line of communication with Mr. Mel Cappe, the head of PCO. If the PCO does not see the role and responsibility of this committee in a positive light, then let us know. If he feels that what we have to say has value and that the responsibilities of the ministers and deputy ministers should be carried out, then let us know. Otherwise, that sense of frustration builds up by the end of everything meeting, unless we have done something really exciting.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): The record will show this discussion and we will govern our agenda accordingly. A meeting will be called to do exactly that. Let us move on now.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Have we concluded that at least we will give notice by writing to the CRTC?

Senator Moore: We are expecting some action by the fall.

Senator Finestone: We should send a letter with a copy to the person we have been writing to thus far.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Is it agreed that we will write to the president?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): We should have a report as to what they have done. Maybe we should also ask when our committee can expect a complete report.

Mr. Bernier: I think the senator has indicated he thought the fall would be a good time.










(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 6C:1)

Mr. Rousseau: These are a series of files that present the same problem. They involve public service employees whose activities have been divested to employers who are not members of the public service. The Public Service Act provides that it will continue to apply to employees who because of this divestiture become employees of an employer that the law refers to as the person to whom the service is divested. In English, the divested is referred as "the person or body to whom the service is transferred or divested.".

There are provisions in the regulation concerning how and to what extent certain provisions of the act will continue to apply to these employees. However, the act defines the new employer as being the person or body to whom the service is transferred or divested, but also whoever acts on behalf of the assignee, his or her agent. In the English version, the regulation says "a person who acts for or on behalf of that person or body."

The regulation seems to have a broader scope than that of the Public Service Superannuation Act. Committee advisors have challenged the possibility of extending the application of the act to employees of a person who acts on behalf of the assignee. The note accompanying the file repeats the arguments put forward by Treasury Board to explain that the regulation complies with the government's policy in this area. This policy is without a doubt valid, but cannot justify the validity of this regulation, of course.

On the matter of the regulation's validity, Treasury Board writes that Canadian case law appears to show that the regulation is valid. That is possible, but the board does not cite any substantiating judgments. The committee should thus ask itself what those judgments or decisions might be.

Moreover, Treasury Board does not seem certain that the regulation is valid. It ends its February 1, 2001, letter with the statement that the board is studying the possibility, together with the Department of Justice, of amending the act to eliminate any potential ambiguity.

The recommendation is that committee counsel ensure that the committee obtain the results of that study and if possible the legal decisions that would support the department's point of view with regard to the validity of the regulation.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): If there have been any such decisions.

Mr. Rousseau: Precisely.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): We do not know for sure that there have been similar cases before the courts and that the usual process took place within the Department of Justice to ensure the validity of this regulation. We must thus ask them to take the next step.

Mr. Lanctôt: That is very interesting; you have just saved us six months!

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Do you agree that we should ask them whether their interpretation can be substantiated with authorities and previous decisions or judgments, and whether the Department of Justice has confirmed or repudiated their claims? They should consult the Department of Justice on the validity of the regulation because there were two interpretations of the regulation and since this affects employees' rights, it is important that things be clear and that these people not have rights eliminated because the regulation was not clear.


Mr. Macklin: Are we again going to leave it an open period of time? Are we setting a date by which we would like to hear that response?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): I would like to refer back to the recommendation that counsel made here. What was your recommendation to the committee?


Mr. Rousseau: The recommendation was to write to the department once again. When legal advisors are told to write to the department by the committee, they send a letter. There is a bring-forward system and the file is monitored until the department replies. The bring-forward system flags the file every four months.


The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): What would that letter contain? It is important we know what is in it.


Mr. Rousseau: Firstly, we are to request court decisions that seem to substantiate the department's position with regard to the validity of the regulation. Secondly, we want to receive the results of the Treasury Board study that is to be carried out jointly with the Department of Justice as to the necessity of clarifying the legislation to eliminate any ambiguity with regard to the power of adopting the regulation in question.


The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Those are the two aspects. The first of this, that could be had almost immediately. There is no need to wait?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): They will write, right now before you leave.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): I understand that, but we want a copy of the legal decisions, correct? They could respond to that immediately. That could be done within 10, 20 days.

The second part, the review of the regulations, may take a little longer, but we could say in that letter that we want to know what the progress is and the expected date of completion. I think that is certainly reasonable. That has not been done before.

We should let them set a time, because what do we know about the details? If they cannot give an indication, we should ask for some. Are we agreed with that?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): I would suggest that we give a time frame to our clerk, who will report to us what progress has been made. Often there are discussions back and forth with the department, and they have more than one regulation that they are discussing. To foster good relations, we can say to Mr. Bernier that we would like to hear about this file when we come back in the fall. I would not, in every letter that we send, set a target.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): I was not suggesting every letter; however, I think in this case we can do this.

Ms Barnes: In all fairness, I cannot respond to a letter in 10 days in my own office, honestly. Most of us aim for under a month.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Whatever is reasonable.

Ms Barnes: Ten days for anything in this place is impossible. I do not really like to hear the apology that because members change that is another reason to delay. I think that is unreasonable and unacceptable, because the work continues and we are supposed to be substitutes for one another here.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): That comment was not intended to be a deadline. It would be an observation that this information is lying there and it has to be picked up.

Ms Barnes: However, we do not know. It could be 10 days on someone's intake desk before it hits the right desk. That is the reality around this place.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): That is a fair comment.



(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 6D:1)

Mr. Rousseau: As pointed out in the commentary, the adoption of the 1998 regulation solved the drafting problem pointed out by the committee. Moreover, as to the problems raised in the correspondence related to the 1998 regulation, the agency has promised with regard to items 1, 3 and 5, that amendments would be made. The agency's response regarding items 1 and 4 and one aspect of item 5 is not satisfactory. In the case of items 2 and 5, these are problems concerning the use of Canada's parks. This was referred to earlier this morning when the committee examined files SOR/94-439 and SOR/94-512. So, on this point, we must simply follow the procedure suggested this morning and align our decision with the decision taken by the committee just now.

The agency's reply is unsatisfactory where section 9(d) of the regulation is concerned. The law allows the Governor in Council to issue regulations concerning domestic animals, which include their destruction or the impounding of strays.


In English, the enabling clause for this regulation reads:

...for the control of domestic animals...including the impounding or destruction of such animals found at large...


Now, section 9(d)(2) of the regulation allows a park warden to destroy any domestic animal that imperils the park's natural resources, be that animal a stray domestic animal or not. It seems clear that the power of regulations providing for the destruction of domestic animals is limited to those who are straying in the park. The argument proposed by the agency is not convincing. If the law authorizes the impounding and destruction of all domestic animals and not only strays, we may ask ourselves why Parliament expressly mentioned stray domestic animals. The suggestion of the committee's legal advisors is to pursue correspondence with regard to this file to explain to the agency why its reply is unsatisfactory, and, of course, to attempt to have it admit that its reply is unsatisfactory and that changes are needed.


Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, on this I am having difficulty agreeing with counsel. It seems to me that the section permitting the making of the regulations is broad enough. If the regulations simply read "for the control of domestic animals brought into parks," there could be no objection to section 9. The underlined portion does not limit the previous words; it does not even modify them. It simply gives an example of something that could be done. Section 9 talks about safety of users of the parks. It is clear that the intent is to impound domestic animals at large, chasing or molesting persons or other domestic animals or wildlife, or creating a nuisance or hazard.

I am having great difficulty seeing why the department's answer is not acceptable for this particular section. I am not talking about the other ones that are mentioned in the letter. It seems to me that the act permits this type of regulation. I do not agree that going a little further and including an example somehow limits their ability to deal with animals that perhaps are not at large in the classic definition but are otherwise harassing wildlife or park users.

I do not think we should pursue section 9 because I think it is broad enough to allow this time of regulation.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): I agree.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if the enabling power is a power to make regulations for the control of animals, it is generally considered that a regulation-making power assumes the continued existence of that which is to be regulated. In other words, if you have the power to make regulations for the control of animals, you assume there will always be animals to which you can apply a controlling rule. If you are providing for the destruction of the animal, then there is no animal left for you to control.

Second, it is generally held, although this is subject to interpretation, that the word "including" is used to extend to ordinary grammatical meaning of words. Parliament here said that you can make regulations for the control of animals. If those words standing alone included the impounding and destruction of private property, I assume they would have been used by themselves. Parliament does not speak superfluously. In this case, Parliament, by using the word "including," which we consider to be an extending word, decided to extend the ordinary grammatical meaning of "control of animals." It is an extension of the ordinary grammatical meaning.

That sentence gives rise to two arguments. On the one hand, if control of animals includes destruction, why do we need the phrase "including the impounding or destruction?" It is totally unnecessary. On the other hand, there is case law that supports the view that the word "including" extends the meaning of something and is used for that purpose.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a legal debate with someone who will undoubtedly top me. However, in Scarborough, we have animal control officers, which is what they are called, and their mandate is to control animals. They destroy animals on a daily basis because keep animals can be kept only so long before they have to be put down, if they have not been adopted. Part and parcel of the animal control function is the destruction of animals, so I cannot agree that it can be presumed that everything that is controlled will continue to live.

On the issue of the statutory interpretation of "including," I concede that your knowledge of the statutory interpretation is better than mine. I am still not convinced that this regulation is so egregiously out of line with what the statute intended that we should follow it up any further.

Ms Barnes: I concur in that. Whether the drafting could have been better is debatable. However, I do not feel strongly about this issue and I do not think that we need to pursue this aggressively.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): There may be some areas in which we have less interest; however, the duty of this committee is not to determine how high our interest is but rather how valid an issue is. I do not want to argue about the ministry's opinion compared with that of Mr. Bernier. These comments are addressed to only one item. They have made progress on the others and have accepted our recommendation. I would suggest that we not recommend elimination of section 9, because they are going to discuss with them some improvement to the rest of those that were not addressed. We will see. Let us give them a chance to argue this with the other specialists in the department. When they report back on the articles that were not modified, that can tell us the outcome.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): This is an example of where this committee can make some major points to develop the respect it has been looking for.



(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 6E:1)

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): We shall now move on to the next file under the heading "Reply Unsatisfactory."

Mr. Rousseau: Pursuant to the Children's Special Allowance Act, the date upon which an allowance application is received determines the month during which the special allowance provided for by the act becomes payable.

The committee's legal advisors noted that the regulation should clearly indicate that an acknowledgment must be sent to the applicant in order to make it possible to determine when the applicant has the right to an allowance.

Although in its reply the agency says that it is willing to make the suggested change, it considers that this is a matter of such little importance that it doesn't understand why the committee has to deal with it. The agency's attitude seems somewhat cavalier. This is a case that concerns the entitlement to an allowance. To talk about it as a routine matter does not seem very appropriate. Moreover, by stating that this file is not worth being brought to the attention of the committee, the agency is not minding its own business. It would probably be a good thing to point that fact out to it. In summary, we should write to the agency to make those two points.

Mr. Lanctôt: It would be dangerous for them to stay into a national park!


Senator Bryden: It must be getting close to the end of the session.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): It is perfectly legitimate to have a bit of humour, sometimes. However, do we really want to pursue this issue, or should we drop it? Ms Barnes wants to drop it. Does anybody else want to leave it where it is?

Senator Finestone: I want to know if it has an impact on the receipt of any kind of monies for women or children. Mr. Bernier says yes, it does. I want to know that.

Mr. Bernier: It does not have an impact on their receipt. It has an impact on whether the person entitled knows when their entitlement arose. If I have a right, I would like to have a precise indication of when my right will come to fruition, as it were, or arise.

Ms Barnes: The situation here filed is used by the Customs and Revenue Agency. There are definitions of receipt and notice and all of those things. There are procedures on that.

Senator Finestone: Why do they not tell us that?

Ms Barnes: They are telling us that in their letter. It is the Deputy Minister who responded here. He is not way down on the totem pole. He is next to the minister, being paid more than the minister, and that is his answer. He is telling us that.

Mr. Bernier: All he has is suggested is that the date of receipt of the application is the date that is used to calculate the deadlines from which we will decide when the right to the allowance arises. All that counsel suggested is that it seemed to make sense to them to have the regulation just say that, that the deadline will start from the date of receipt of an application. It does not seem an extraordinary thing to ask for as opposed to simply relying on the administrative practice of the department.

Ms Barnes: It is more than an administrative practice. I believe they use the words "file your income tax return" under the Income Tax Act. If I am wrong on that, that is a different matter; but "filed with the minister" is used in other acts that relate to people's monies, rights and obligations. All he is telling you is that we are being consistent with some of our other legislation. I will listen to the others.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I thought one of the issues here was that counsel was suggesting that there should be an acknowledgement sent. Are we dropping that? I do not think that an acknowledgement is in fact required; nor do I think an acknowledgement should necessarily be sent, provided that there is something in the regulations that indicates that there is a fixed date upon which the application was deemed to have been received.


Mr. Rousseau: The entitlement is created on the day upon which the application is filed.


It shall be deemed to be filed with the minister -

Mr. Bernier: On the day the minister acknowledges -

Mr. Rousseau: - acknowledges acceptance of it. It is true that the right comes on the day the minister acknowledges. There is no express request in the regulations that the person entitled -

Mr. Wappel: I understand that point. Rather than forcing the minister to acknowledge every single piece of correspondence on this issue, surely it could be worded that it will be deemed to be filed with the minister on the day that it is received, or some other words like that. It does not have to be part and parcel of requiring the minister to acknowledge receipt. The words as they are now would seem to indicate that the minister should acknowledge receipt.

I am not sure we want to put CCRA in a position of being required to acknowledge every piece of correspondence. If the regulation were changed to say that it would be filed when received, there is an office procedure that has a date stamp, or whatever the case may be, and as soon as it is date stamped that is when it is received. I do not think the person sending it has to receive an acknowledgement. I thought that was part of the issue.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): That is the issue. You read the regulation, Mr. Wappel. It states that it shall be deemed to be filed with the minister on the day the minister acknowledges acceptance of it.

Mr. Wappel: Surely those words can be changed without requiring the minister to send an acknowledgement.

Mr. Bernier: We are following on their choice, Mr. Wappel. They made the choice. We made a suggestion that was consequential to that. Of course, if you want to go back, it could be the date it was sent; it could be the date of receipt.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Of course, the regulation has to comply with the terms of the bill. When you are talking about amounts of money to be received and knowing when you are eligible to receive it, how do you know that it has not been received? We will not get into the administrative procedures, but the law should go the best possible way of administering that. That is the point. We talk about countless millions of people throughout the country who are entitled to that. The day it starts and the day the mechanism is in place and they receive the benefits has to be determined. They have said in the bill, "Well, the minister has to acknowledge." I think we have to comply with the bill, otherwise it has to be changed, or they will have to find a way for the day of receipt to be deemed the date that it is acknowledged. It has to be stated somewhere.


Mr. Lanctôt: The legislator does not say things just for the pleasure of saying them. In that case, there would not be any talk about children's allowances. The acknowledgment is the best proof for that family or that mother of a single-parent family. She has other things to do than having to determine when there would have been proof of that application. If she receives an acknowledgment, this will facilitate things, especially in a file such as this one. The act is already clear; they should be asked to send an acknowledgment. I agree with the legal advisor. I also agree with Mr. Wappel that in other cases this cannot always be required. But in this case, I believe that the acknowledgment is necessary.


The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): Have we changed your mind, Mr. Wappel?

Mr. Wappel: Not really. It deals only with electronic filing.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Schmidt): By extension, it could go the other way as well.

Mr. Wappel: That is fine.

Senator Moore: I think the advice of counsel should be followed. The concern seems to be that in the workload the minister has to answer all correspondence. Maybe it should be that it is deemed to be filed on the date that it is issued by the applicant.

It is their choice as to how they want to set it up administratively, but counsel's point is that there should be some response.



Mr. Rousseau: In its April 18, 2001 letter, the Canadian Wheat Board indicates that the promised amendment was submitted to the Department of Justice regulation section. The file is progressing slowly but surely. The committee's advisors will continue to follow up and will keep the committee informed of developments.


(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 6F:1)

Mr. Rousseau: As indicated in the commentary, this amending regulation makes the changes suggested by the committee. Moreover, 11 new points were raised in correspondence concerning the amending regulation. Amendments have been promised relating to those six points.

In addition, one change has already been made. The agency's reply is satisfactory as regards item 11.

The reply regarding item 3 is unsatisfactory. Section 21(2) of the Honey Regulations require that the owner or operator of a licensed establishment provide information to the agency. Indeed, under to the Canada Agricultural Products Act, there is no power to require through regulation that an owner or operator provide such information.

This point has already been raised repeatedly in other files by the committee. Here, the agency is citing the section of the act that allows it to impose conditions to the marketing of agricultural products, simply to say:

Accepting the Agency's point of view means accepting that just about any obligation may be made a condition for the marketing of agricultural products.

Item 8 of the letter raises exactly the same type of problem and the agency's reply, which is the same, is no more satisfactory than in the other case. Finally, concerning item 9, the regulation allows for the use of English, French, or both languages on livestock feed labels.

As the regulations to be found on these labels concern among other things the safe use of this feed, this is a case where the committee has always insisted on bilingual labels. It would thus be a good thing to do that here as well.

The committee advisors recommend writing anew to the Agency to explain why its reply is unsatisfactory and to reiterate the committee's point of view on bilingualism.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): And also on item 3?

Mr. Rousseau: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Items 3, 8 and 9?

Mr. Rousseau: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): So we have won on six items and there are still three for which we must continue the battle?

Mr. Rousseau: There are seven; some changes have already been made.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Are the members of the committee in agreement?

Hon. Members: Yes.


Senator Finestone: Some of your recommendations have been accepted, but others are still pending. I am curious; do these regulations impact financially or on the health of the population when certain matters regarding livestock and poultry carcasses are interpreted at will? Everyone is concerned about health and carcinogens and mad cow disease, et cetera.

When you look at these issues, I am sure you think of the perspective of the citizen. Are any of these matters detrimental to the health of the population if the regulations are not followed?

Mr. Rousseau: We do not look at the policy that is behind the regulations.

Mr. Bernier: That being said, Senator Finestone, the bilingual labelling is a good example. Obviously, the committee is led to say that there should be no choice between French and English on labels because those are safety instructions. In matters of safety, the users should have the ability to read instructions in one language or the other. In that sense, policy does come into play.

Senator Finestone: Thank you.


(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 6G:1)

Mr. Bernier: Under "Reply Satisfactory," the committee here, Madam Chairman, objected to provisions requiring the keeping of documents by producers of nuclear stock potatoes. The amendment proposed by the agency, Mr. Chartier's letter of May 2, 2001, would respect the limits of the authority delegated by Parliament and is a satisfactory solution. If members agree, implementation of this proposition will be monitored in the usual way.

Hon. Members: Agreed.


(For text of documents, see Appendix , p. 6H:1)


(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 6I:1 )


(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 6J:1)



(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 6K:1)



(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 6L:1)



(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 6M:1)



(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 6N:1)


(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 6O:1)


(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 6P:1)


(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 6Q:1)




(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 6R:1)

Mr. Bernier: The instruments listed under "Action Taken" will be of particular interest to members who may feel at times that the work of this committee is not as fruitful as it should be. In this case, 45 amendments have been made as a result of the work of the joint committee. A total of six illegal provisions identified by the committee were revoked. Seven illegal provisions have been re-enacted under proper statutory authority. One new remission order has been made to provide legal authority for the making of certain brief refunds by the Atomic Energy Control Board.

Perhaps when, in the early part of the meeting, frustrations rise, members can take a quick look at the end of the agenda and realize that, overall, this committee is effective and is getting results.

Finally, Madam Chairman, 43 instruments are listed as instruments without comment.

Mr. Wappel: As an item of new business, I was just speaking with Mr. Lee about the conference in Australia. We are getting down to the very last dates of the session. It is my understanding that this matter has been discussed amongst the leaders, on the Commons side at least. The concept has been agreed upon.

However, a motion will be required in the House and presumably in the Senate, if it has not already been done. We are running out of time in which to do that. Could the appropriate clerk prepare whatever is necessary for Mr. Schmidt's action, or has that been done? Can we get an update?

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roy): Everything has been done on our side. The house leaders must make a final decision. Following that, Mr. Boudria would normally present an order of reference in the House of Commons ordering the committee to travel.

Mr. Wappel: For all intents and purposes, everything that needs to be done has been done?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): The technical side has been dealt with. What about the Senate side?

Mr. Till Heyde, Joint Clerk of the Committee (Senate): On the Senate side, the Internal Economy Committee is reviewing the budget this morning. We may know the decision this afternoon. They will report back to the Senate.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roy): For the MPs, everyone interested in travelling should be in touch with the whip. In the end, the final say on travel belongs to the whips of each party.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Although some have generously offered to use their points, everyone will be treated equally. We will all go on the same terms and conditions. The budget has been designed accordingly. We may end up with a smaller budget than requested from the authorities, but we went with the regular, normal budget.


Mr. Lanctôt: We are told that the whip must decide, that is true, but the whip cannot decide if we do not have the specific agenda.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): You all have the agenda of the conference.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Heyde): The document was sent.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): You could perhaps provide him with an additional copy.


If others want to have a copy of the conference program, we have copies here.

Before we adjourn, I have to ask permission that we not hold the June 21 committee meeting if the House is not in session. The Senate will probably be in session. We can give the indication to our staff that there might not be another meeting of this committee before next fall.

I would like to thank everyone for their help, support and assistance. I hope they will deal with their frustration under the summer sun. The conference will help us to have this meeting. We want to ensure that we have new ideas, perhaps to address the question of governing this committee's work next fall.

Ms Barnes: I have two points. First, I want to remind committee members that we had asked for a chart for the fall. Perhaps further to one of the senator's remarks earlier today, there could be some guidelines added to the chart as to anticipated reasonable time parameters for each thing. I think we can put that in as an extra help and guide.

The other matter is just a practical issue. How many members did we originally decide would go from each level? I know it is not the full committee that can travel.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): I think it was one from every party in terms of the opposition, five Liberals, one Conservative senator and one Liberal senator.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Heyde): The total is 10. If there is full funding, there will be three senators and seven MPs. In the House of Commons, how do those seven break down?

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roy): It is a decision that I am not making for the breakdown as to who is travelling. Again, it is the House leaders and the whips who, at one point, have to decide who is travelling.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Hervieux-Payette): The request we have is for seven, except that we have no request from the NDP. We have just the Alliance, the Bloc, Conservatives and Liberals, on the House side. There are two senators who have indicated their intention to go.

The committee adjourned.

Top of document