---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 8 - Evidence, April 21, 2005

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, April 21, 2005

The Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:34 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator John G. Bryden and Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Joint Chairmen) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): I call the meeting to order.

SOR/88-230 — FRONTIER LANDS REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/88-263 — NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE AREA REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Good morning. Counsel has given us the chronology of the correspondence on these special agenda items that amounts to typical stonewalling from a department. There are many similar cases in our inventory of regulations. Mr. Bernier, please proceed with your briefing.

Mr. François-R. Bernier, General Counsel to the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The attachment to the first letter before the committee setsout a chronology of this file back to 1988. The accuracy of that chronology has been confirmed in a letter dated March 8, 2004, from Ms. Debra Crawford, Chief of Parliamentary Affairs, Natural Resources Canada. In the same letter, Ms. Crawford stated that she expected the amendments to be approved by the end of May 2004. That did not take place. The committee requested that the file be brought back if the amendments were not processed by that time.

That was done earlier this year and, after the meeting of March 10, I informed Ms. Crawford, in her capacity as the designated instruments officer for the Department of Natural Resources, that the committee was requesting her appearance to provide an explanation of the delays. That prompted a reply dated April 7, 2005, in which Ms. Crawford explained that for a variety of reasons the promised amendments will not proceed until they are examined to, and I quote, ``establish the appropriateness of being able to adapt these regulations to better fit within the Federal Government's Smart Regulation agenda.''

I am not sure I understand what that means. At first glance, certainly it seems ironic that we end up in a situation where ``smarter regulation'' means ``delayed regulation.'' I do not know what is the wish of the committee at this time. Do members wish to maintain their request that Ms. Crawford appear before the committee? Should a letter be sent to the responsible minister instead?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Are there comments from members of the committee?

Mr. Hanger: It is unclear why Ms. Crawford is reluctant to appear before the committee. That being the case, why not proceed with a request to the minister to appear? Did Ms. Crawford give reasons other than the vague one in that letter?

Mr. Bernier: No. We received only that letter.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: It would seem that she sent this letter in response to our request for a meeting, assuming that we would accept her logic. Does either chair know why this smart regulation process would delay a regulation? Is this a legitimate excuse? I am at a loss.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): I think it is an excuse put forward, as the previous chronology of the correspondence shows with its many excuses. This seems to be another excuse in the plan to delay the regulation. That is my observation.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): I think the word ``excuse'' is a good word to apply in this case because that is what it is. We cannot delay action on our files waiting for smart regulations to be implemented, which may be one to three years from now, or perhaps not at all. It is complicated and will take time to accomplish. I believe we have to deal with the current situation now.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Maybe we should have Ms. Crawford appear at the next meeting.

Mr. Hanger: Why not invite the minister to appear?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, we could invite the minister.

Mr. Bernier: The schedule of a minister is quite full and so it would be difficult to have him appear within two weeks of our request, but it is possible. Generally, if past experience is any guide, it takes a little more time to figure out a free time slot for a minister.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: In this political environment, anything is possible.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): That is true. When you review the chronology, you sense a stonewalling attitude from the beginning. After 15 years, we have absolutely nothing. It is a good suggestion to have the minister appear before this committee. Are there other comments?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): I do not know that we expect the minister probably to be able to arrange his schedule so that he can appear in two weeks. Can we set the second meeting, not two weeks from now but in the next two weeks?

Mr. Macklin: This is a suggestion. Could we simply say we would request the minister or other appropriate official, if you really want to do it in that time frame?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): That is fine with me.

Mr. Hanger: Can there be a commitment that we will deal with this issue when they appear?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): I think the letter needs to be worded in that way, with reference to how long this matter has been going on. It is a matter of trying to bring it to an end. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2003-119 — PROCLAMATION GIVING NOTICE THAT THE PROTOCOL AMENDING THE CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND AUSTRALIA CAME INTO FORCE ON DECEMBER 18, 2002

Mr. Bernier: In this instance, Mr. Chairman, I questioned the efficacy of requiring a proclamation to give notice of the date of coming into force of a tax agreement if the proclamation giving that notice is published nearly six months after the date of the coming into force of the convention.

The response goes over the various statutory steps in the process of bringing these tax conventions into force. It is correct, so far as it goes, but it does not really address my question.

The second step in the legislative process is the tabling and coming into force of an order approving the convention. That step was completed on June 22, 2002. The government apparently wished the convention to come into force at the beginning of the next year.

I have to ask, why did it take another six months after June 22 to notify Australia that Canadian statutory procedures had been completed? If, as stated in the response, Australia gave its notice that it had ratified and completed the steps in Australia for coming into force of the convention on December 18, why did it take another six months to inform Canadians of the completion of these procedures?

In short, I do not question the legality of the procedure that was followed. I question why the department needed so much time, as a practical matter, to go through those procedures with the result that interested parties are officially notified of the coming into force of a tax agreement that may affect their affairs six months after the effective date of that agreement.

Despite the explanations of the department, which relate strictly to the statutory scheme and the legal steps, I still have some difficulty believing this is how parliamentarians envisaged the system would work, when they can post a requirement that proclamations be issued to notify Canadians of the coming into force of a tax agreement or other convention.

In fairness, I should note that the department indicates that it did give notice of the coming into force on its website on December 30, 2002, at which time I am sure there were thousands of Canadians sitting in front of their computer. I would also note that is still later than the December 18, 2002 date of coming into force.

In any event, I think the point has been made. Unless the committee wishes to pursue this, this is a case where we could close the file.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Agreed?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): As I have said before, a good insurance salesman always stops when the sale is made. Do not talk yourself out of it. The second last paragraph of the response from Kathleen Manion of the Department of Finance is not very clear. When you read that paragraph, it states

... leads to the fourth step, the notification via a proclamation. Subsection 8(4) of the Act requires the issuance of a Proclamation giving notice of the day the Protocol ``comes into force.'' That day becomes known as a result of the completion of the ratification.

The ratification, which happens with us and everybody, happens in Parliament or the legislatures if they happen to be involved:

That day becomes known as a result of the completion of the ratification. In that context, the publication of the Proclamation could only take place after the coming into force of the Protocol.

I read that as saying the proclamation can take place after the complete ratification, and the ratification takes place after the technical coming into force between the governments.

Mr. Bernier: The ratification process, as indicated in the preceding paragraph to the one you quoted, was completed on December 18, 2002. That process was completed when Australia informed Canada that it had completed all steps in its domestic law to bring the convention into force. In fact, that is what gave rise to my initial question to the department. If the ratification process was completed on December 18, 2002, why did it take until June 18, 2003 to issue the proclamation giving notice of this fact? That is six months later.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): We will close the file.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Any other comments?

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I am new to this committee. I suppose closing the file makes sense. However, how do we ever change the system if we do not make a fuss? Would it not make sense to write to the Minister of Finance to say this is what happened, we are concerned, we cannot do anything about it now, but fix your process in the department? It seems a shame if we do not register some sort of concern.

Is there any real impact on anyone by not knowing about this for that period of time? Are there any direct consequences?

Mr. Lee: The department obviously acknowledges the importance of making the tax-paying public aware of this because they take steps to show that the notifications of December 30 are picked up by legal and tax publication publishers and interested professionals. They have their eye on that but, at the same time, they have not explained why the six-month lag happened.

I think Mr. Bernier has the right focus. This is not the most important issue here except in terms of public process, ratification promulgation and all of those things. This is part of the promulgation process, and a six-month lag is way out of step with what promulgation is supposed to be. They have not explained it; they are probably unable to explain it, and I think we ought to flag it. As much as I would love to close the file, we would be just walking away from a conduct that is unacceptable in terms of the promulgation process.

I would like to flag it clearly. We can let the staff close the file if there is an acknowledgement of our position on it. Would it not be interesting to know that there are a whole lot of other promulgations that are taking six months? Then we would have a problem, perhaps. If there is a way to specifically focus on the committee's view that the six-month lag is not acceptable, and get to a file closure, I would be happy to take that route.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): I do not see any problem in drawing the attention of the minister to the lag that is in there; that six months appears to be inordinately long. By writing a letter to the minister to that effect, it would at least flag it for the department that we are paying attention to that. We would not indicate in the letter that we are going to close the file, but just bring it to their attention and then close the file.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Bernier knows who we are dealing with. Perhaps he has a comment on the most effective way to flag and close this.

Mr. Bernier: The suggestions of members are entirely on point. Perhaps the idea is to register concern. I went the way of closing the file, having noted the concern, because the fault here, I suspect, is with internal, departmental administrative procedures. Of course, this committee does not deal with administration but rather with statutory instrument.

It would have been possible to issue that proclamation well before it was issued. It is a matter of the sense of importance that civil servants attach to these processes in the department. This reflects a sense that they do not think they are all very important. The suggestion is entirely appropriate that a letter be sent to the minister registering concern, and asking that he examine departmental procedures for the handling of these tax conventions; and leave it at that.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2003-2 — CONTROLLED ACCESS ZONE ORDER (HALIFAX, ESQUIMALT AND NANOOSE HARBOURS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 8A:1)

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, this file deals with the authority of the Governor-in-Council to make this order by virtue of the prerogative powers of the Crown. The Controlled Access Zone Order purports to authorize the Minister of National Defence to restrict access to the whole or part of three harbours if necessary to ensure the safety or security of a defence establishment, of property of the Canadian Forces outside the defence establishment, or of a vessel or aircraft or other property of a visiting force within the meaning of the Visiting Forces Act.

To provide a context, I would note that the National Defence Act expressly authorizes the creation and the establishment of control measures with respect to defence establishments and areas in the vicinity of defence establishments. This order seeks to impose restrictions additional to those that Parliament authorized to be imposed in the National Defence Act. The areas referred to are those to which access could not be restricted pursuant to the statute, hence, the invocation of the prerogative powers of the Crown.

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the Crown continues to enjoy certain prerogatives in respect of the defence of the realm. This is all that is to be drawn from the statements, quoted by Captain J.C. Maguire in his letter, from the Vancouver Island Peace Society v. Canada case, and the excerpt from The Military Forces of the Crown, by Charles M. Clode that was copied and attached to the material.

The fact that some prerogative powers are still in existence does not mean, however, that the Crown is at liberty to do as it wishes in respect of anything having to do with national defence. I would think that it is incumbent on the Crown, if it invokes a prerogative, to clearly establish that the particular powers it claims to exercise as prerogative powers do exist. In my view, the Department of National Defence has failed to do so.

It has not established that the Crown enjoys the legal authority to prevent or regulate access by citizens to internal or territorial waters of Canada in times of peace. No trace of such power can be found in Mr. Clode's treaties, in Joseph Chitty's A Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown or in Halsbury's Laws of England, which we have consulted. In fact, our preliminary review of Halsbury indicates that in England similar powers are conferred by statute. In addition to not having been able to point to a case or an authoritative work of doctrine that would clearly establish a power of the Crown to restrict movements of the subject in the vicinity of a vessel or aircraft or property —

Senator Moore: — restrict movements of citizens.

Mr. Bernier: Yes, it was to restrict movement of citizens because these controlled access zones are established to prevent citizens from approaching or entering those areas.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): That would apply to non-citizens as well.

Mr. Bernier: Yes. The concern in terms of the prerogative relates more to citizens because we have a Charter background that speaks to the freedom of movement of citizens. Significantly, the order in question purports to be made, in part, to the benefit of vessels or aircraft of visiting forces. This would include countries or armed forces of countries as disparate as Botswana and the United States. I put it to the committee that even if there were prerogatives as claimed by the Department of National Defence, it is very doubtful that the Royal Prerogative could be exercised other than in relation to the Queen's naval forces, as opposed to those of allied or friendly foreign states.

The government took the view in 2002 that there is a need to restrict movements near vessels belonging to visiting forces and in the vicinity of defence establishments to a greater extent than that which Parliament has chosen to allow under the National Defence Act.

Senator Moore: This is a post-9/11 reaction.

Mr. Bernier: That is possible. It might be a reaction to events on the West Coast when there was a visiting nuclear submarine of the United States.

Mr. Hanger: I refer to that location, Nanoose Bay, where Allied Forces will enter to test torpedoes. There are residents living around Nanoose Bay and so I was surprised to learn that access to the facility was not more restricted that it is. The facility is not set up to deal with a protest that might occur, I assume.

Mr. Bernier: That would be my suspicion, given that in the case of a vessel, the order provides that the Controlled Access Zone Order can move with the vessel. The zone can change constantly with the movement of a vessel or aircraft.

In his letter on page three, Captain Maguire acknowledges that,

While it is possible to identify a number of prerogative powers and rights in relation to national defence that have been recognized by the courts in the past... it is impossible, given the lack of case law in this area, to state with certainty the scope or limits of the royal prerogative in relation to national defence as it exists in the modern era.

In clear, as I read this, there is nothing to establish the existence of the claimed prerogative in this instance. Yet, the Governor-in-Council, based on nothing more than a hopeful guess that such a prerogative exists, is prepared to order the search of Canadians and their property without warrant and the use of force against Canadians, which are enforcement measures provided for in this order as compliance and enforcement that if a person is leaving a controlled access zone that they entered without authority, they can be forcibly detained and searched.

Those are serious matters. I believe this matter needs to be pursued. I think if there is a need for these kinds of measures elsewhere than in or around defence establishments, I am sure Parliament will see the wisdom of that and will amend the National Defence Act to grant the necessary authority. However, to rely on some vague and shadowy reference to royal prerogative, when in fact no previous case of similar use of prerogative powers can be found, is highly dubious, and I do think this is an important matter that needs to be pursued.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): I do not disagree with that; but to get a precedent, there always has to be a first case. We had a precedent setter, 9/11, and perhaps it was not necessary to use a method to be able to control these situations until North America found itself in the situation we are in. I am not prepared to dismiss the fact that there may very well be a royal prerogative that allows for the protection of the country and the nation and the people. If we are pursuing it, let us find out who the constitutional experts are on royal prerogative in this type of situation; let us bring them in and ask them if there is a prerogative that would cover a situation like this.

It is a little late when you need to stop someone, I assume, to try to get a regulation passed through our system. It takes 15 years to try to get one fixed. I think it would be a function of this committee to pursue this and find out whether or not they are acting within their jurisdiction; or if it needs explicit authorization, probably in statute, to be able to do this. There are a lot of things that can happen between now and the time we get a statute through.

That would be my suggestion. I do not know who to recommend, but there are people who probably do.

Senator Moore: Mr. Bernier, we have passed a number of statutes since 9/11 dealing with national security and so on. Do any of those have any reference to this sort of situation? I did not see any of that in here. Is there anything there that could be used or interpreted as covering this type of situation?

I know in Halifax Harbour, we are one of the few ports that take nuclear-powered foreign vessels, usually coming into the air base. I see them out there in the water; they have thousand-foot flags around them and a boat keeps the yachtsmen and other people away. That has been going on since before 9/11. I take it that this applies to that type of situation. Are there any provisions in those past statutes that could cover those situations?

Mr. Bernier: The same thought occurred to me, that some of those statutes appear to be so broad that there might be authority there, but I did not do the research. It could be done. I have also, in part, relied on the fact that given this was raised at the time of our exchange when Captain Maguire replies in early 2005 —

Senator Moore: He did not raise any of that either —

Mr. Bernier: We could have a look, certainly, as part of the overall research.

Senator Moore: I am sure if he had some sort of authority that he could rely on under those statutes, he would have raised it with you.

Mr. Hanger: I think there is a level of urgency that we as a committee should do something, at least as the senator points out, to have that constitutional input.

Mr. Bernier: On the urgency question, in fairness, as is always the case with the committee's examination of statutory instruments, there is something in place right now. It is this order. There is a presumption of validity that attaches to the order; so whether or not it eventually turns out the order was without legal authority, that is really not relevant. Right now it is there, it can be applied, it can be resorted to — and would be, I presume.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: With due respect to Senator Bryden, this is one precedent I would not want to see set. If we are talking about a sudden emergency, an urgent situation, there are powers that the government can employ to respond to a crisis, the most extreme being the War Measures Act. However, to broaden powers beyond legislative scope in this way should be something we should be very careful of. If there is a real situation here and the government feels it must have this ability, and the Department of National Defence is determined that it needs it because it has cases requiring it, then do it through legislation. It seems to me that we should say no; we should send it back and say, if there is an issue, bring it forward as an amendment to the National Defence Act. Otherwise, it is a slippery slope. It sets a dangerous precedent at a time of real concern about the role of Parliament and democratic rights to begin with.

Mr. Lee: If we are looking for precedent, we might as well include the bombing of the USS Cole, which was sabotaged; a number of personnel were killed in an incident that involved lack of a protection zone around a ship. These harbours in this order are harbours where we have Canadian and Allied naval vessels, so I do not doubt the need for a protective zone around a military vessel. The question is whether there is legal authority to do it in the way they have done it here.

My recollection is Bill C-11, I think it became Bill C-33 or vice versa, contained statutory provisions to allow national defence to create zones of this nature. It was somewhat controversial when it went through the House. I believe that bill has been passed, and my recollection is that there was authority in that new statute to create zones of this nature. My recollection is also that it was a land-based zone rather than a moveable water zone.

These are all technical issues. I have no problem drawing the line in the sand here and requiring statutory or legal authority for such an order. I think we should pursue it, but perhaps we could find out if this order is still in force, given that there is a new statute that may serve the purpose. We could invite the Department of National Defence to be more specific, if they can be, about why they think this particular order is valid, given our view that we do not see the authority for it.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): I wanted to respond to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis that I was not saying to expand any powers. I would just like to have someone tell us that the claim is correct, that there is a prerogative there and it is broad enough to accept that. There are people who make their living doing this sort of thing. As part of our investigation, counsel, I would like to see if we can get either written or, if necessary, viva voce evidence where that Crown prerogative lies in relation to the Canadian Forces, along with what Mr. Lee is saying.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, certainly we have sums in the budget to cover the costs of outside opinions. If that is the wish of the committee, I could provide the committee with two or three names and an indication of their professional backgrounds so that the committee could select one person to ask. At the same time, one should ask for a rough estimate of cost. The committee has done this before.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): Yes, and we could ask two people if there seem to be varying degrees. I do not think it will cost much. Academics are often interested in appearing before parliamentary committees because it looks good on their dossiers for tenure purposes, et cetera. If the committee is in agreement, I would like to pursue that along with the suggestion of Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Lee: If the military has sufficient authority in the new statute to do what it did in this case, then we could move on because they statutorily rectified the problem that they had. If it has not been rectified by the statute, then I am prepared to spend a few dollars to clarify the issue.

Mr. Bernier: We will verify that.

Mr. Lee: I would not want to spend the money and the time if the issue is technically moot.

An Hon. Member: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Are members agreed?

Senator Moore: I do not want us to be seen as questioning the opinion of our legal counsel. If Captain Maguire had something to hang his hat on, he would have said so, and he has not said. What will you do, counsel?

Mr. Bernier: I can reassure you, senator, I have no problem with any variety of academics agreeing that I gave the correct advice to the committee. This has happened in the past so I am fine with the suggestion. Because we cannot write back to the department, it seems to me that we are bringing this file back to committee at the next meeting with a report on whether some of the new statutes enacted since 9/11 may provide a basis for this order. If they do not, then we will move to the identification of possible sources of expert advice.

Senator Moore: That is fine. Agreed.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: That will be at the next meeting, not in two years.

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Anders: When I was with the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, there were several opportunities when I had the honour to go into their control centres where all the ships are flagged and assigned with various colours, et cetera. I do not know if members are aware, but hundreds, if not thousands, of vessels are tracked. Of the hundreds that you can literally see on the tracking system, about 80 per cent are given a colour code. That means the monitors do not know what vessels they are. More than 80 per cent of the traffic on our coastlines bears no identification and so we have no idea of the business of the vessel. Only a small fraction of the vessels out there are known to us and have a plotted trajectory. That was of great concern to me when I was in the maritime forces headquarters for the Atlantic and for the Pacific, although the monitors do not seem to be as concerned about that as I was; and I do not know why that is. I hope that we stand on the side of the defence of the realm, if you will, because 80 per cent of the daily traffic is not identified. Anything done by the committee that would hamper their ability to effectively track and monitor that traffic would further compromise those massive holes in our security network.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I want to acknowledge the importance of what was just said. Perhaps that is part of the substance of this issue, although we are not arguing the substance of whether there is a problem; we accept that there is a problem. What is the best way to fix it? Why not go to Parliament with an amendment to the act so that it is taken care of up front. The committee should deal with it properly as opposed to stretching this understanding of the royal prerogative and broadening powers in a backroom way. It makes sense, from the point of view of parliamentarians, to keep as much as we can within the prerogative of Parliament.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Do I understand that we will write a letter seeking an amendment of the National Defence Act?

Senator Moore: We may do that eventually but for now, we will follow counsel's suggestion.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

Mr. Anders: In the long term, I agree with my NDP colleague. In the short term, I am willing to look the other way.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): What do we intend to do?

Mr. Bernier: I will bring this file back to the next meeting with information on whether some statutes passed since 2002 would provide a statutory basis for the order.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): If you find that the statutes do not provide such a basis, then counsel will seek out two authoritative opinions.

Mr. Bernier: I am uncertain of the necessary time frame to do this but we will try for two weeks.

SOR/95-26 — SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/2000-138 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES REGULATIONS

Mr. Peter Bernhardt, Counsel to the Committee: Several matters were raised in counsel's letter of November 28, 2003, to Ms. Kathleen Manion. In January 2004, the Department of Finance advised that they had determined that the opinion of the Department of Justice Canada on these points was required. Since that time, several follow-up letters have gone unanswered. Obviously, it is difficult for the committee to perform its function without the view of the regulation-making authority concerning provisions that have been questioned. The most recent letter advised the department of this but, given the passage of time, it was thought that by now it was necessary to bring the file to committee, although we do not have a reply. Perhaps at this time it might be appropriate for the joint chairmen to write to the minister requesting his cooperation in ensuring that the committee receives its reply without further delay.

Senator Moore: If Ms. Manion will not respond to letters of the committee, the joint chairmen could invite her and/ or her boss to appear before the committee. Then, we would have the response.

Mr. Bernhardt: We could certainly do that.

Senator Moore: No response is discourteous and inefficient.

Mr. Bernhardt: So we will extend an invitation?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/99-144 — ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/98-230 — PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/98-231 — PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/98-232 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AIRPORT TRANSFER REGULATIONS

SOR/99-3 — PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/99-247 — PORTIONS OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/2000-1 — CERTAIN CANADA PORT AUTHORITIES DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/2000-60 — PORTIONS OF THE CANADA PORTS CORPORATION DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, each of these eight files gives rise to the identical issue concerning provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act. The provision states that where a portion of the federal public service is divested, the act continues to apply to any former public service employee who becomes employed by the person or body to whom the divestiture is made. The Governor-in-Council then has the authority to make regulations respecting the manner in which, and the extent to which, the provisions of the act and the regulations apply to these new employees.

In each of the regulations, however, the act and the regulations have been extended not only to the person or body to whom the service was transferred, but also to persons acting for or on behalf of such a person, in effect subcontractors. They have gone one step further down the line.

While Treasury Board has never conceded that these provisions were unlawful, they eventually did agree to seek a clarifying amendment to the act. The committee then suggested that the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program could be used to make this amendment. As members know, this program is designed to correct inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other minor matters of a non-substantive nature.

Treasury Board then replied that they had been told by the Department of Justice drafters that this program would not be appropriate. That is because the amendment might have financial repercussions involving the spending of public money, and would broaden the scope of the regulation-making powers under the act. In other words, the amendment would do more than just clarify the situation, and basically the Department of Justice was agreeing with the committee. If amending the act in this way would broaden the scope of the regulation-making powers, then obviously it must follow that the current provisions are unlawful.

In view of this, when the file was last before the committee, counsel was instructed to inform Treasury Board of the committee's view that the act should be amended as soon as possible, and that the regulations would have to be retroactively validated to protect the interests of the affected employees.

In its reply, the Treasury Board indicates that it is ``examining the legislative possibilities'' for amending the act.

I know of only one way to amend an act of Parliament, so I am not really sure what these various legislative possibilities would be. Nevertheless, the committee was advised that they are looking into doing this in the near future; so it would seem, at least for now, that there are some wheels in motion on this. I suppose it can be followed up in the usual manner.

Senator Moore: How do we put some sort of a time frame on this? You have to follow up; you have to put something there that says we would like to hear your response within 30 days, or something like that.

Mr. Bernhardt: Certainly, senator, since we are dealing with an amendment to the act, perhaps it would be appropriate to write to the minister and simply say we note your officials say they are hoping to do this in the near future. Could we have some assurance or some time frame?

Senator Moore: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): Agreed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-78 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS REGULATIONS, 1985

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 8B:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Action has been promised on the first point discussed in the correspondence. It is suggested the explanation given by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on the second point can be seen to be satisfactory. If members agree, the progress of the promised amendment will be monitored as per usual.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-337 — CHARGES FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS 2002

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 8C:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, as the covering note explains, an amendment has been promised in connection with point two in the correspondence. The reply on point three would seem to be acceptable.

That leaves point one, which concerns a distinction made in the regulations between services expressly required by an act of Parliament to be provided and those that are implicitly required to be provided. Fees are only to be charged under the regulations for these implicitly required fees.

As the note suggests, whether the service is expressly or implicitly required by statute, Parliament is still requiring it; so this is kind of an odd distinction. It seems that what they intend is that fees will only be charged for services that fall outside the legislative mandate of the superintendent. If that is what they wish to do, that is fine; but they will need to reformulate the regulations to reflect that. I think that is the matter that should be pursued further.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Bryden): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/99-9 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 8D:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Here, Mr. Chairman, the committee had previously been promised amendments to two provisions. It was asked whether the same amendment did not also need to be made to a third one. Point one of the department's reply explains that the third provision is somewhat different. So be it.

The second point concerned the basis on which the minister arrived at a particular amount under section 8517(3.1)(b) of the regulations. The department sent along an excerpt from Canada Revenue Agency's operating manual that was not terribly helpful, but nothing really turns on the question, and I would suggest there is nothing to be pursued on that point.

It is just a matter of following up the previously promised amendments.

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

Senator Moore: Just an observation, chair. It is interesting that this same person, Kathleen Manion, did not reply to your other letters but she replied to this one. I look forward to her explanations.

SOR/2002-162 — GUIDELINES RESPECTING CONTROL IN FACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION 407.2(1) OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT

SOR/2002-163 — GUIDELINES RESPECTING CONTROL IN FACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION 377(1) OF THE BANK ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 8E:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Each of these instruments uses the terms ``significant subsidiary,'' and ``significant dependency.'' The department was queried as to the meaning of these terms, and it was suggested that perhaps definitions should be included. The Department of Finance replied that there is no need to define these terms because they are intended to be understood in their ordinary meaning. I may be stupid, but I still have no idea what that meaning is. The question is whether the use of these terms makes the instruments so vague that they can be said to be defective, or whether they can be reasonably understood by the people affected.

It may well be that accountants, banks and insurance companies have a pretty good idea what these terms mean in practice. If so, there will be nothing here that would need to be pursued. I simply do not know.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Are there any comments?

Mr. Bernier: I do not know how significant something must be — what makes you a significant shareholder?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Maybe this committee has not consulted what they have published, both for insurance and banks, which are guidelines that are about 600 pages. It is a disguised regulation as far as I am concerned. People who do not really abide by these guidelines can be deprived of their status as a bank or insurance company, but they are much more detailed. Of course, this is probably defined in detail in these guidelines; except that the guidelines, for me, are not guidelines. One day, the chairs may have an interest in looking at all these guidelines, which in fact are regulations that escape the overview of the parliamentarians; they are very stringent on all these corporations.

For example, they have a chapter for insurance about the conduct of the ``bon père de famille;'' I do not know how you say that in English, the good father — there is an expression of law in Quebec. It is about 25 pages to describe what is a ``bon père de famille,'' so it reminds me of that. If they need 25 pages to describe what that transaction is, I have the impression that in this case, it is probably an explanation that runs for many pages.

I agree with counsel that it is not in the regulations. We are deprived of the significance, and, of course, companies have to comply with it. I thought that this could be helpful to the committee. I discovered these guidelines and I was just appalled, first of all, by the cost of applying these guidelines that all consumers are paying; I am talking about millions of dollars per year, if not hundreds of millions, for all the companies we are talking about, and consultation is very limited. Nobody has an overview of it and parliamentarians are not a part of this. I want my colleagues to be aware of that.

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose that we could write to thank them for telling us that these have the ordinary meaning and ask what that is. We may well receive a stack of photocopied material in response.

Mr. Bernier: They should know if there is an ordinary meaning.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): I think we should do that.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I agree. I do not understand significant dependency. Either one is dependent or is not dependent; it is like being half pregnant. Perhaps, there is a definition that would enlighten us.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: It might be different depending on which sector you are talking about.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Is it agreed that we write to receive a clarification?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Include a limit on the time to respond.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Yes.

SOR/2001-452 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MARITIME PROVINCES FISHERY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 8F:1)

SOR/2003-87 — ENDEAVOUR HYDROTHERMAL VENTS MARINE PROTECTED AREA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 8G:1)

SOR/2004-63 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ONTARIO FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1989

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 8H:1)

SOR/2004-260 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (2003 DROUGHT REGIONS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 8I:1)

SOR/2004-306 — ONTARIO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 8J:1)

Mr. Bernier: For the instruments listed under ``Action Promised,'' nine minor drafting corrections are promised.

SOR/95-147 — MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 8K:1)

SOR/2003-103 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MARINE MAMMAL REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 8L:1)

SOR/2004-241 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CROWN CORPORATION CORPORATE PLAN, BUDGET AND SUMMARIES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 8M:1)

Mr. Bernier: For the instruments listed under ``Action Taken,'' together with one instrument listed under the preceding heading, a total of 11 amendments arising out of the work of the committee have been made.

SI/2002-8 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE YUKON TERRITORY (KWANLIN DUN FIRST NATION, Y.T.)

SI/2002-12 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 13, 2001 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-13 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AS THE MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF ALL PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT AND THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AS MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 7 OF THAT ACT

SI/2002-14 — ORDER DECLINING TO SET ASIDE OR TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2001-628

SI/2002-16 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 24, 2001 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-67 — ORDER AMENDING THE TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT (SASKATCHEWAN) REMISSION ORDER

SI/2002-69 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND CROWN CORPORATIONS AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE QUEENS QUAY WEST LAND CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2002-70 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND CROWN CORPORATIONS AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2002-71 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 12, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CANADA FUND FOR AFRICA ACT

SI/2002-72 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2002-75 — PROCLAMATION ESTABLISHING ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONS

SI/2002-76 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 17, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-79 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AS THE APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR THE BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PART X OF THAT ACT

SI/2002-80 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2002-81 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2002-83 — ORDER DECLINING TO SET ASIDE OR TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2002-39

SI/2002-84 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 12, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-85 — ORDER FIXING MAY 31, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-86 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 12, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-87 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MAURIZIO BEVILACQUA AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE REY PAGTAKHAN TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY

SI/2002-88 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JOHN MCCALLUM AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE MAURIZIO BEVILACQUA TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

SI/2002-89 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE CLAUDETTE BRADSHAW AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE JEAN AUGUSTINE TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE

SI/2002-92 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 3, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-93 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT AND AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2002-94 — ORDER DECLINING TO SET ASIDE OR TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2002-81

SI/2002-95 — ORDER FIXING JULY 1, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-97 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 28, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-98 — EXCLUSION APPROVAL ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ONE EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

SI/2002-99 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 21, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CANADIAN PAYMENTS ACT

SI/2002-100 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 21, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-101 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 27, 2002 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CANADA FUND FOR AFRICA ACT

SI/2002-103 — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO) MEDAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (FYROM) ORDER

SI/2002-104 — ORDER DECLINING TO SET ASIDE OR TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2002-82

SI/2002-107 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND CROWN CORPORATIONS OF CANADA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE CORPORATION IMPLEMENTATION GROUP

SI/2002-108 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND CROWN CORPORATIONS TO THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS TO BE KNOWN AS THE OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF CANADA

SI/2002-109 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND CROWN CORPORATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE CROWN CORPORATION POLICY AND INFORMATION DIVISION

SI/2002-110 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR THE CANADA LANDS COMPANY LIMITED FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2002-112 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ACT AND AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SI/2002-114 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR THE QUEENS QUAY WEST LAND CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2002-115 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2002-116 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2002-117 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2002-118 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2002-119 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF CANADA AS A DEPARTMENT AND DESIGNATING THE DEPUTY HEAD AS DEPUTY HEAD FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2002-120 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF STATE TO THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS RESOLUTION OF CANADA

SI/2002-123 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (SALT RIVER FIRST NATION, N.W.T.)

SI/2002-128 — ORDER FIXING THE DATES OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-130 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2002-131 —ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2002-147 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 1 TO 8 AND PARTS 1 AND 3 OF THAT ACT

SI/2002-153 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 6, 2003 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-154 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (EZODZITI, N.W.T.)

SI/2002-160 — PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 27 OF EACH YEAR AS ``CANADIAN MULTICULTURALISM DAY''

SI/2002-161 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 1, 2003 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2002-163 — EXCLUSION APPROVAL ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ONE PERSON TO A POSITION AT THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA

SI/2002-164 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 6, 2003 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2003-148 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (DEH CHO FIRST NATIONS, N.W.T.)

SI/2003-200 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE GAR KNUTSON TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SI/2003-201 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE JOE VOLPE TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

SI/2003-202 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

SI/2003-204 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE CANADA MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS FOUNDATION

SI/2003-205 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY MINISTER AS THE DEPUTY HEAD

SI/2003-206 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-207 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-208 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SI/2003-209 — ORDER TRANSFERRING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SI/2003-210 — ORDER TRANSFERRING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SI/2003-211 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY MINISTER AS DEPUTY HEAD

SI/2003-212 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-213 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-214 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY

SI/2003-216 — ORDER TRANSFERRING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY TO THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY

SI/2003-217 — ORDER TRANSFERRING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE OPERATIONS BRANCH OF THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY TO THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY

SI/2003-218 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE PRESIDENT AS DEPUTY HEAD

SI/2003-219 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-220 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-221 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AGENCY OF CANADA

SI/2003-222 — ORDER TRANSFERRING PORTIONS OF THE TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AGENCY OF CANADA

SI/2003-223 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC SERVICE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AGENCY OF CANADA AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE PRESIDENT AS DEPUTY HEAD

SI/2003-224 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-225 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2003-226 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE TO THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PARKS CANADA AGENCY

SI/2003-227 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY TO THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF CANADA

SI/2003-228 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS RESOLUTION

SI/2003-229 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

SI/2003-230 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION CENTRE

SI/2003-231 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE

SI/2003-232 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER BRANCH OF THE TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT

SI/2003-233 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF MARITIME PROGRAMS

SI/2003-234 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2003-235 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR THE CANADA LANDS COMPANY LIMITED FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2003-236 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ACT AND AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SI/2003-237 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR THE QUEENS QUAY WEST LAND CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2003-240 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT TO THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MINT AND THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS UNDER THE ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT

SI/2003-241 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2003-243 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE CANADIAN HERITAGE AS THE MINISTER TO WHOM THE PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD SHALL SUMMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT

SI/2003-244 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2003-245 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2003-246 —ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AS MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, the agenda includes 99 statutory instruments that, in our opinion, conform to all the committee's scrutiny criteria.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): I see that there are no further comments.

The committee adjourned.

---