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 email@example.com.
Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations
Issue 9 - Evidence of February 15, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 15, 2007
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 J. Trevor Eyton and Mr. Paul Szabo (Joint Chairmen ) in the chair.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Good morning. Mr. Bernhardt, please proceed with the first agenda item.
SOR/2004-263 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE FISHERIES ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
(For text of document, see Appendix A, p. 9A:1)
Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: The committee has had long-standing objections to the fixing of token close times and year-round close times in fisheries regulations. The purpose of these mechanisms is to give fisheries officers the authority to establish the actual close times under the guise of varying the purely symbolic close times set out in the regulations. In 2001, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans suddenly indicated that the provisions in the Marine Mammal Regulations embodying the approach that had been objected to would be amended to conform to the view of the joint committee. Even after these amendments were made, it was difficult to believe that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had accepted suddenly the committee's objection to this kind of provision, having steadfastly refused to accept it for more than 20 years.
As well, there seemed to be no movement toward amending other regulations that contained the same mechanism. This prompted the November 7, 2006, letter asking whether there were plans to make amendments to other fisheries regulations for the same purpose. The reply advises that the intent is to revise gradually the whole regulatory framework by tailoring close times to reflect more clearly the periods when fishing actually will not occur. This is to be done as amendments to the various regulations arise over time. While this will be a long and ongoing process, it is still a considerable step forward. The committee could continue to monitor the situation to determine whether this supposed ongoing program unfolds.
Bill C-45, the proposed new fisheries act, contemplates that the existing regime of close times will be continued initially, although a mechanism in the bill will replace it eventually with close times fixed by fisheries management orders made by the minister. These orders would not be regulations but would be subject to review by the joint committee as statutory instruments.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there questions or comments?
Mr. Lee: Counsel has done a good job and this file reflects some progress. Within a year or so, we will know whether the department has accomplished its goal. A number of regulations apparently contain the offending close time references, but the item is moving in the right direction. The only additional request to the department could be for either a benchmark for time to change all the close time references or a complete rewrite, which would entail changing all 35 close time references at once. The second option might be problematic depending on whether the reference is oysters, salmon or trout. I agree with counsel that progress over the next few months should be monitored.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): The recommendation is to continue to monitor. The undertaking to continue this practice of gradualism might not be the best outcome. Monitoring means that nothing will happen, so perhaps the committee should write a letter to advise the department that it is not simply a matter of when it gets around to taking action. The committee should advise the department that it will follow the matter closely and that it wants to remain apprised of progress.
Senator Moore: I agree with the comments of the joint chairman. We could have a schedule of the regulations in which these close times are referenced. In that way, we could tick them off as progress occurs. Mr. Lee mentioned that there are some 35 close time references for the various species under the legislation. The committee could request a time frame to change the next five references, for example. It is inappropriate to take 20 years to see progress of some kind. As a committee, we must do better than that and be more demanding of the department in this matter.
Mr. Bernhardt: One issue for the department's consideration is that many of these are provincial fishery regulations, in the sense that they govern the fisheries on a province-by-province basis, and much of the input on those regulations is from the provincial governments to the federal government. They are trying to let it be known that when the provinces ask the federal government to make amendments to these things they will remind the provinces to take them out.
The difficulty is that this has become so ingrained over the years — it is found in every fisheries regulation they have. The alternative would be to rewrite the entire spectrum of fisheries regulations in the country, which would be an enormous undertaking. That is one reason they have been very careful over the years never to admit the committee has a point. They have always disagreed with the committee; although now it looks like, while keeping that fig leaf, they are trying to gradually resolve the situation.
There is nothing wrong with the committee writing and making the point that these regulations tend to be amended fairly frequently. That being the case, there should be an opportunity, even if they pick them off one by one, to get them all covered off before another 20 years pass.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): What are the consequences if nothing happens?
Mr. Bernhardt: The consequences are that people are being told when they cannot fish in a manner the committee considers to be contrary to what the Fisheries Act provides for.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): We make regulations because there is a reason for them and they are necessary.
Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): It does not sound like a very egregious violation. What is the big deal? Somebody must answer that question.
I am not sure whether this is a matter that can never be resolved in legislation same or similar, where you have these kinds of undertakings under the regulations and they are simply impractical or it is difficult to fulfill the regulatory requirement.
If that is not the case, we should probably consider taking a stronger view — that these are the regulations and we must take all reasonable steps to ensure they are properly communicated to all who must be aware of them, and that they are implemented on a timely basis.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, the issue here is not so much whether it is justifiable to have regulations. I think all of us recognize the biological facts, et cetera, that apply to these things. The issue for this committee is whether this is done legally. We need to push the department to ensure that, within the context of the act, the regulations are legal — that is, it is properly set out in legislative form and that there is a proper authority for making those regulations and enforcing them.
I think that is what this committee should be seized with; and, from what I understand, that framework is not in place. Is that correct?
Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, as far as the committee is concerned. The committee has been pushing this issue since it first reported on it in the 1980s.
Mr. Epp: I believe the current minister is quite eager to comply. I have a question for counsel. Have you reviewed the new act and, if so, are these issues addressed there?
Mr. Bernhardt: No, this same regime would continue. There is not a problem with what the act envisions the regulations doing. It simply says that you can make regulations setting a close time. Then there is a provision saying that you can also make regulations giving fisheries officers the authority to vary close times set in the regulations. That is fine, too.
What the committee has seen, over the years, is you then get a regulation that says there is no fishing on December 31 from 11 p.m. to midnight; there is the close time. The only purpose in doing that is now the fisheries officers can fix the real close time without needing to go through the regulations.
The committee has said, no, that is a shell game. You are making an empty regulation intentionally. What you have to do is sit down and fix a realistic close time; then it is fine if someone has to vary that later because of circumstance. However, your first close time cannot just be an empty shell, one hour on New Year's Eve. Why not have 11:59 p.m. to midnight on New Year's Eve when you cannot fish? It is obviously not there to be a serious close time. It is just a trick so you can vary it.
Mr. Epp: Legally, they can do that.
Mr. Bernhardt: The committee has steadfastly said no for the last 20 years; and now the department has agreed to change that. I do not think there is much point in the committee going back and revisiting its position. The department has tacitly accepted it; the only issue is how that will play out.
The department is proposing to gradually clean these things up as they come up for amendment. The question for the committee is whether it is content with that or whether it wants to say, no, you have changed one, you have told the committee this is the way it should be, so please go ahead and do it immediately.
That will be a big undertaking for the department, obviously, because this is what they have used in all of the fisheries regulations across the board. Nevertheless, if the committee feels that is the way things should proceed, it is entitled to make the case to the department.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): What is defined as a ``big undertaking''?
Mr. Bernhardt: Amending every schedule to every fisheries regulation that is made under the Fisheries Act to take these things out. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of these close times because the department has adopted that practice over the last 30 years.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Since this has been with us for 30 years, we could carry on for another 20 years. I assume there are efficiencies of doing many of them at the same time, but it would extend things to do them piecemeal.
What is the exact process they would have to do to make even just one? Changing a regulation does not require legislation.
Mr. Lee: In this case, through this bad habit, they have created a bunch of artificial close times. To fix that, they have said that they will pick a close time that more closely matches the down time on the existing fishery. Therefore, they would have to refer to each specific fishery and get a sense of when the most proximate close time would be — the down time. Then they would pick, consensually with the stakeholders or with their provincial counterparts, a close time that more closely matches the down time.
In each case, you must go through this decision-making process to see what the appropriate close time would be to replace the artificial one. It is a rather significant undertaking because you are dealing with all parts of the country and different types of fish and fishers.
I think our position has been accepted. I would love to see an undertaking that will not create any more artificial close times. They actually have not said that.
Mr. Bernhardt: That is certainly something to watch for when we see new amendments.
Mr. Lee: Maybe we can make that point — that they will undertake not to create any more artificial close times.
I see it as a big undertaking. It is like pushing a string, from our point of view. In order for them to fix all of these in one tranche, it might involve months of consultation and effort. I think we are on the right track on this. The principle has been accepted, and the only objectors might be the fish. I will stop there.
Senator Moore: Is there no way that a provision can be included in the new Fisheries Act to clean this up in one move and, at the same time, make it clear that they are not to do any new artificial close times?
Mr. Bernhardt: Certainly, the committee could communicate the second part of your suggestion to the department — that the committee does not expect to see any new examples of this.
Under Bill C-45, the current regime would continue such that close times fixed by regulation could be varied through these orders. The bill also provides that this entire system be replaced by administrative orders such that regulations would no longer fix the close times. In that sense, the problem would not arise.
The regime that continues what we have now would come into force first and then the other regime could be brought into force later. I would assume that the idea is to replace all of these regulations that fix close times with a system of ministerial orders.
Senator Moore: If Bill C-45 were to pass with this provision, could the department continue to set close times or would that end and any future close times would be in accordance with the new regulations put in place to support the new act?
Mr. Bernhardt: It would appear from the wording in the bill that the department envisions a two-stage system. In the first stage, there would be no change, even upon enactment of the bill.
Senator Moore: Would that be permanent?
Mr. Bernhardt: No. At a time in the future, stage two would allow the department to activate the new mechanism that would eliminate the close time regulations. I am not sure what the timing of that would be.
Senator Moore: That makes me think that it will be wide open with two systems available to set close times, and I do not like the idea of that. The committee should consider a time frame to end the first stage.
Mr. Norlock: It is my view that the situation is the opposite of Senator Moore's comment. The department appears to recognize that these close times are problematic. The second stage would effect an umbrella regulation, as counsel has said. The department recognizes that the process entails a tremendous amount of work and that Bill C-45 eventually will cover the concerns of the joint committee.
It is incumbent upon this committee to continue to monitor progress on the file and advise the department accordingly. Should there be an additional communication with the department, perhaps it could be that the department look at a recommendation from the committee to speed up the process.
Ms. Guay: This is the second time that I find myself here talking about close times and fishing. You say that this has been going on for 20 years. Do fisheries officers really monitor the situation? Do coast guard officers go out on patrol between 11 p.m. and midnight to see if this is really happening? To be honest, they have been arguing about close times for 20 years. At some point, this matter has to be resolved. Perhaps we need to take two, three or six months, Mr. Lee, and resolve this matter once and for all.
Mr. Bernhardt: I doubt very much that a fisheries officer would be sitting in his boat with his New Year's Eve champagne. The purpose of fixing the close times is so that they can be varied with the species. In most cases, the regulations that have page after page of close times for each lake and stream have nothing to do with reality because the times have all been varied on the ground. The knowledge of this led the department to decide not to bother trying to a realistic close time in the first place, simply to pick a close time instead. The other reality is that they do it from January 1 to December 31, which is the other extreme.
Mr. Epp: I am not sure that disallowing fishing on a certain lake from January 1 to December 31 is unreal because in some lakes the stocks are depleted. In those cases, DFO declares no fishing until the stocks are replenished.
Mr. Bernhardt: However, it is a well-established principle in law that the power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I would suggest that this might be important enough to pursue with more than a simple monitoring and encouraging of progress. I would suggest that the committee ask Mr. Alex Li, Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, to appear as a witness before it. He would be able to offer suggestions for possible actions and the time frames, et cetera. We need to handle this file with knowledge rather than with speculation. Let us see if we can arrange that appearance for the first available meeting, perhaps in two or four weeks. We should have a conversation or a meeting with him to review the comments and concerns that members have raised. We need to devise a plan that would allow the committee to discharge its responsibilities, while remaining knowledgeable about the implications to the department, and how that will dovetail with the provisions of Bill C-45, should it become law.
It is worth the time of the committee to learn all the facts before trying to determine the best approach to bringing the matter to its earliest possible conclusion. Is it agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
C.R.C. C. 1238 — NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REINDEER REGULATIONS
(For text of document, see Appendix B, p. 9B:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: In the course of their appearance on December 7, 2006, officials at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development undertook to provide a work plan for the resolution of the committee's outstanding concerns. The work plan was provided by the minister on February 1, 2007. It is apparently now contemplated that the amendments promised to the committee will be separated from those dealing with the boundary issues. The forecast completion date is May 2008, and the department has committed to updating the committee on progress every three months.
If members are agreed, counsel will monitor the situation and ensure that the progress reports are received.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there questions or comments?
Mr. Lee: This is one of the first times that I can recall a minister of a department giving the committee a schedule of items to accomplish with time frames mentioned, even though we had to call him. Recognizing that this file has been outstanding for 24 years, I am content with the current status. Counsel and the joint chairman are doing a good job.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are members agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/99-324 — BOOK IMPORTATION REGULATIONS
SOR/99-325 — EXCEPTIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES AND MUSEUMS REGULATIONS
(For text of document, see Appendix C, p. 9C:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: The committee's letter of October 31, 2006, advised the Minister of Industry that it was the wish of the committee that these files be brought back at the first meeting in 2007. It was hoped that a reply to that letter would be received by then. No reply was received; therefore, at the last meeting, the committee determined that it was unable to proceed with the further discussion of these files. They were placed on the agenda for today's meeting in the hope that a reply would be forthcoming. This has not proven to be the case.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): We wrote on February 1 and asked for some communication by the time of this meeting. It has not been forthcoming. We have expressed a concern about these instruments. I guess at this point, it is time to go to Senator Harb.
Senator Harb: I am not sure they have taken that seriously. Reading the correspondence, it looks like they feel we are a nuisance. If the committee feels the issue is important, I think we should show them that we are serious and we want to take action on it.
However, in reading the correspondence, as much as we are trying to tell them it makes sense, basically, they are telling us ``no.''
Mr. Lee: There are two parts to this. One is the removal of redundant regulations, which is a housekeeping thing. There are three or four of them, and I think they should have just said, yes, we will get rid of them. I do not know why they did not. If it were an egregious case involving civil liberties, we could help them along a little bit with a disallowance report, but this is just the housekeeping part.
The second part of this is the incongruity between what the regulation provides for and what the law provides for. What should be in the regulations is a procedure that allows them to get out in front of the making of the photocopy or the copy. I would have thought that would have been a very easy thing to do. I even wrote down some words on this, but I will not burden the record with that.
If the making of the copy was a statutory function, which it is — it is explicitly described in the statute as an exemption, and in the regulations — then they should codify it procedurally. They should have a request form on which the requester states that the requester falls within one of the two exemptions, and just have a box to check it off. Surely, the requesting of a copy falling within a statutory exemption requires some kind of an act by the requester — even a financial transaction, where there would be a cost involved.
They should develop a stamp with the two exemptions and a check box, and the requester figures out how many copies he needs times 25 cents or 50 cents. A copy is made, you check off the box that explains why you are exempt and then they are home free. They can leave the existing regulations there and stamp the copy that says it will not be used, except for the purpose of exemption.
This is a no-brainer and I think they are being stubborn. There is no point in wasting a lot of time on it, but I think we should firm up — even if we have to tell them how to fix it, give them a little suggestion. That may move the yardsticks.
In terms of getting rid of the redundant regulations, tell them to do it.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I was a little concerned that most of the communication seems to have been one way. That is a problem. We need to discharge our responsibilities and we have not been taken seriously on the communications.
Since we are bringing Mr. Li from Fisheries and Oceans, similarly, perhaps we should bring the equivalent or the minister's representative to respond here in person at our next meeting — or earlier in writing, if they care to do so. We feel that the matter is something that they can handle within a reasonable period of time and we have made responsible attempts to resolve this without the apparent interest or cooperation of the department, which we find not to be productive for anyone involved.
Let us see if we can lure in a response.
Ms. Guay: I am not in total agreement with you. I have to wonder what more he can tell us. This is the second person that you wish to call before the committee. It will delay our work considerably. Can we not consider an alternative course of action? I can appreciate the context and the fisheries issue is a long-standing one. Perhaps there is something else we can do aside from inviting departmental officials to testify before the scrutiny of regulations committee. Could we not find some way to get through all of the documentation faster instead of meeting with departmental officials who do not have the authority to change anything?
Senator Harb: It is a valid point. In order to handle this, perhaps our secretariat could bring all the files this department has not really dealt with. We could bring them all up at once and ask them when they will deal with items one, two, three or four, et cetera.
I think the same thing should apply to every department with which we have, in some cases, correspondence going back to 1991 or 1992. This is a good opportunity for the committee to start handling them that way. Bring them in, present the items and ask for action, or an agenda for when they will handle them.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I wanted to address Ms. Guay's point. I certainly am not interested in having panels of witnesses every meeting, having our regular meetings turn into two-hour marathons on issues.
In discussion with our general counsel on this particular matter, the conclusion is that they are just not taking us seriously. I have no intention of sitting here listening to their story. I agree with general counsel that a request for them to appear to answer our letter or, in advance of our next meeting, to have provided a response, will give them an indication that we will not play any more games. However, we are not here to hear presentations or to have general witness activity. It is simply to say, we will have this finished by our next meeting or whenever is available.
Ms. Guay: Perhaps committee counsel could send them a very pointed letter in which we ask to meet with them, indicate that we expect some answers and let them know that we do not think they have taken our concerns seriously. Then, we will see if an answer is forthcoming. Maybe we will not need to have this meeting if they respond to our letter.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): That is what is contemplated. We really do not want them to come here; we want an answer.
However, if there are other problems, the members will have to be apprised of what they are and we will decide what to do once we have another round of communications.
I agree with you, Ms. Guay. Let us not make work here. Is that plan of action 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
(For text of document, see Appendix D, p. 9D:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: As background information, the Public Service Superannuation Act provides that, where a portion of the public service is divested, the PSSA 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 has the authority to make regulations respecting how the PSSA and regulations are to apply to these employees. In each of these regulations, however, the PSSA 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 their behalf — in effect, subcontractors. The committee concluded that this was unlawful.
As explained in the chairman's June 5, 2006, letter, the committee's view was effectively confirmed by the Department of Justice when it refused Treasury Board's request to make a so-called clarifying amendment to the PSSA through the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program. The reason given to Treasury Board by the Department of Justice was that this would broaden the scope of the regulation-making powers in the Public Service Superannuation Act, which means that the amendment would do more than clarify. If amending the act in this way would broaden the scope of the regulation-making powers, then it must follow that the regulations currently in place are unlawful.
In the committee's last letter, the chairman sought from the minister a clear indication as to when remedial amendments to the PSSA would be introduced. In reply, the minister advised that he was consulting with cabinet colleagues on the appropriate vehicle to amend the act. We now have a new minister so perhaps he could be asked what progress has been made since November 2006 and when the committee can expect a legislative solution to this problem.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): When the committee wrote a letter dated June 5, I note that it took until November 7 to receive a response, which was just a simple acknowledgment. No significant work was done to produce that response from the department. I would suggest that the committee give the new minister time to become apprised of the committee's concern with the file.
I would suggest as well that the matter was raised initially with departmental officials, who are still there, and that several months passed before the department responded with a simple acknowledgment. That is not a good omen for progress on the file. Are members agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
PARKS CANADA USER FEES: SERVICE FEE PROPOSALS FOR 2005/06 TO 2008/09 AND TRAVEL TRADE FEE PROPOSALS FOR 2007/08 AND 2009/10
(For text of documents, see Appendix, p. 9E:1)
Mr. Rousseau: As mentioned in the note to the committee, the new Parks Canada service fee proposals address the drafting concerns raised in connection with earlier versions of the list of fees. Regarding the new list of fees, in a letter dated October 27, 2005, committee counsel requested an explanation for the failure to publish this list in the Canada Gazette within the time frame prescribed by the Parks Canada Agency Act.
In a letter dated November 17, 2005, the agency explained the technical reasons for its failure to comply with this requirement. As committee members may have noticed, the new list of service fees has not been appended to the file prepared for the committee, the reason being that this list is 163 pages longs and the only unresolved issue concerned the delay in publishing the latest fees. Under the circumstances, counsel felt that there was no need to reproduce a document of this size.
Getting back to the agency's response, if the committee so wishes, counsel can write to the agency to ask if a publication delay is likely to occur each time a new list of service fees is drawn up. A new list is also likely to be approximately 163 pages long. The committee can also wait and see if another publication delay occurs before asking the agency what steps it intends to take so that the problem does not recur in future. If the committee opts to wait and see what transpires the next time new service fees are adopted, then this file can be considered closed.
Mr. Epp: Perhaps for the same reason of sheer volume that counsel does not print it for the committee it is not published in the Canada Gazette. It would require the cutting down of too many trees to make enough paper to print such an issue — and that concerns me, as an environmentalist. Perhaps the committee should press the department to ensure that these are posted on its website.
Mr. Rousseau: As things now stand, the Act prescribed that the list of service fees shall be published in the Canada Gazette. Therefore, as you were saying, in order to change anything, the legislation would have to be amended. If the committee wants to make a suggestion along these lines, then it is free to do so.
Mr. Epp: Is it within the purview of this committee to suggest that the department must publish the regulations unless it changes the legislation to say that they do not have to be published?
Mr. Bernhardt: I would note that part of the committee's stock in trade is ensuring that the public is aware of the laws with which they are expected to comply. I might caution some hesitancy in suggesting to a government department that it do anything that would narrow the scope of publicity they might be required to undertake in respect of regulations. That could set a precedent that the committee might not choose to follow. The matter is certainly for members to decide.
Mr. Epp: I, and, I believe, thousands of Canadians, no longer look for a copy of the Canada Gazette when we need information. Rather, we search online.
Ms. Guay: I really think it is not up to our committee to make suggestions of this nature. In any event, everyone's focus these days in on the Internet. Departments are also adopting more modern approaches. It is not up to us to ask the Parks Canada Agency to publish fees on the Internet. Of course, that would be desirable, but to make that suggestion is not our job. Our role is to scrutinize regulations, not change the rules observed by different government departments or agencies. I would simply like to suggest that we close this file. In future, if we ever notice that the list of fees is still not being published within the prescribed time frame, then we can write to the agency once again and take action accordingly.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Would counsel explain that?
Mr. Rousseau: Regarding this matter, as I suggested, Mr. Chairman, the committee can choose either option, that is it can wait from the problem to recur or it can seek confirmation from the agency that it will take steps to ensure it does not happen again.
Ms. Guay: They will not give you any guarantees.
Senator Moore: I thought we were to seek clarification not as to the matter of print publication but of an indication that this would not be repeated.
Mr. Rousseau: I had not understood that the committee had come to a decision on this particular matter, but if the committee wishes, counsel can easily write to the agency and either ask it to confirm that steps will be taken, or inquire as to what it plans to do to ensure that this does not happen again.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): If I may, the fee schedules have been produced to the end of 2008-09 but not published. Likely, there is nothing we can do to change the legislation quickly enough. Therefore, they will have to be published. That shall happen and this matter should not reoccur every year but only periodically. We should advise them in a letter that this appears to be a problem that will be ongoing. It will be indefinite unless other options can be identified to ensure we do not have this ongoing problem.
Our role is simply to deal with the regulatory issue. They must satisfy the regulations, and we should encourage them to consider other options so this matter does not reoccur. Let us see if we can get a response. Agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2002-318 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 3 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
SOR/2003-100 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 3 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 9F:1)
Mr. Rousseau: Correspondence exchanged in this matter dealt firstly with the inordinate amount of time taken to register these two instruments pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act. In a letter dated December 9, 2004, the Department reported that it had amended its processes to prevent a recurrence of this problem.
Second, counsel for the committee pointed out that under the legislation, ministers may add to the substances listed in Schedule 3 of the Act or delete any substance. Ministers have used these powers to correct spelling errors committed by Parliament when the legislation was adopted. Counsel wondered whether these amendments were legally justified since they had not been made by Parliament. On page 2 of the letter of May 23, 2006, the department noted that amending these provisions was consistent with its powers to add and delete substances from the schedule.
Mr. Chairman, even though their intent was simply to correct spelling errors, the fact remains that ministers used their powers to delete a substance that contained a spelling error in the name and add a substance that did not have a spelling error in its name.
Given that these powers were not used to make substantive changes, counsel recommends that the committee accept the department's explanation. If the committee has no objections, this file can be closed.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there any questions or comments? Is it agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2005-415 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE — ENERGY CONSERVATION EQUIPMENT AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES)
(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 9G:1)
Mr. Rousseau: With respect to this file, counsel noted a discrepancy between the French and English versions of the regulations. In a letter dated July 5, 2006, the department explained that this discrepancy is the result of an error committed when the regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, and that a correction has since been made. Since the inconsistency identified has been addressed, this file can be closed.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Is it agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2003-3 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 9H:1 )
Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, section 36(5)(f) of the Fisheries Act authorizes the Governor-in-Council to make regulations prescribing the persons who may authorize the deposit of deleterious substances in the absence of any other authority. For Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the relevant items in Schedule V to these regulations state that a named official of the provincial government will be the authorization officer if there is a written agreement in effect between the Government of Canada and the government of the province. If there is no such agreement, then the regional director of environmental protection from Environment Canada shall be the authorization officer.
It is, therefore, the case that the identity of this officer will depend on whether or not the federal government has an agreement with the province. It was put to the department that, although this establishes a rule for determining who will be the authorization officer, it cannot be said to prescribe this person, as is required by the act.
The department takes a contrary position, arguing that the regulations set out factual and objective criteria that make the identity of the officer readily available. In this connection, reliance is placed on several dictionary definitions of the word ``prescribe.''
The question, however, is not whether a rule has been prescribed in the sense of being authoritatively set down but whether the identity of the officer has been set down in the regulations. The problem is that the act does not require the Governor-in-Council to prescribe criteria that make the identity of the officer readily attainable. What is required is that the identity of the officer be in the regulation.
Here, however, the determining factor is whether there is a federal-provincial agreement. That is something entirely outside the control of the person making the regulation.
In an effort to avoid having to amend the regulations each time the official needed to be changed, the Governor-in- Council has effectively turned over responsibility to decide this matter to those people who may or may not be entering into negotiating federal-provincial agreements. Unfortunately, this is not what the act contemplates. I suggest the matter be pursued in a further letter to the department.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there any questions or comments?
The letter we wrote November 17, 2004, was not responded to until April 10, 2006. The first line of the letter reads: ``This is in response to your letter dated November 17, 2004.''
Senator Moore: Was there nothing in between?
Mr. Bernhardt: There would have been a series of letters from counsel saying we have not received a reply. We routinely do not reproduce those, but our standard bring-forward is four months. Members can assume, in a case like this, that every four months another letter would have gone to the department nagging them about a response.
Mr. Del Mastro: I am also concerned about the amount of time it took to turn this around. The other thing I routinely find somewhat insulting on this committee is that often departmental officials will decide to give us definitions of words, as though we do not know what that means.
I find the letter almost inflammatory toward the committee and counsel. Perhaps that might be conveyed in a letter to the department, that we understood what the word meant. That is just a thought.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): This matter is deemed to be an unsatisfactory reply. I think counsel has heard some input from the committee and we should continue to pursue this. The matter should come back to us within the normal period of time of turnaround. The committee would like to pursue a resolution, and a recommendation for a resolution, the next time we see this item. It sounds like a matter that is resolvable if people show good faith; let us see if that good faith exists.
Senator Moore: Since it took so long to get a reply last time, are we going to suggest we would like to have a reply by a certain date here? Would that be in order?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I think that is always good.
Senator Moore: Is that enough?
Mr. Del Mastro: Would 60 days be reasonable?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Sure. Is that agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2001-101 — COST OF BORROWING (BANKS) REGULATIONS
SOR/2001-102 — COST OF BORROWING (CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANIES REGULATIONS
SOR/2001-103 — COST OF BORROWING (FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES) REGULATIONS
SOR/2001-104 — COST OF BORROWING (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 9I:1)
Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, the department's letter reveals that the promised amendments to the wording of the regulations should be made in 2007. In its letter dated June 20, 2006, counsel for the committee had also asked the department if it had completed its review of the last point raised in the letter. The department did not provide a clear answer to this query.
It might be a good idea to write back to the department to ask if its response should be taken to mean that amendments will be made with respect to this point as well. Therefore, counsel recommends that another letter be sent to the department asking that it clarify this matter and report on any progress made since its letter of July 13, 2006 to the committee.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are we agreed with the recommendation of counsel?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2001-222 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS REGULATIONS, 1985
(For text of document, see Appendix J, p. 9J:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: A minor amendment has been promised to the committee to clarify the wording in one provision. This was to be included with other amendments to the regulations that were initially forecast to be made in 2004. Public consultation on the possible amendments ended in September 2005. However, in June 2006, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions advised that this initiative was now to result in a completely separate set of regulations. It was still expected that further work would lead to proposals to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations that would then provide an opportunity to make the amendment promised to the committee.
There is no indication as to how long this might take. Perhaps another letter to OSFI might be in order to ask for a time frame for the completion of these amendments. The issue is relatively minor; however, the committee might also consider advising that, unless this amendment package to the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations is imminent, it would wish to see the amendment promised to committee proceed independently.
Senator Harb: The letter from OSFI dated November 4, 2005, mentions its consideration of submissions from stakeholders. Is that still the case, given the change in government since that time? Was all of the information from the public consultations, which ended in September 2005, scrapped, and were new initiatives introduced? Where does this fit in terms of the mandatory requirement of the government to deal with the OSFI amendment that was scheduled for review in 2006-07?
Mr. Bernhardt: I am not sure of the broader context of this. The amendment promised to the committee was a matter of minor housekeeping. The committee had been told that it would be piggybacked onto the result of these reviews. Given that the committee's concern was so minor, such an approach seemed reasonable to committee members. The matter seems to be branching off in other directions and slowly changing. As far as the committee is concerned, the basic question is whether something will be done soon and, if not, perhaps the committee's amendment could be taken aside and put through. That could take some time.
Senator Harb: It would be helpful to know where it stands today.
Mr. Bernhardt: Certainly.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Members have raised a couple of interesting points to include in the correspondence on this file so to bring it to conclusion. Ms. Guay can then move that it be closed. Is that strategy agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Lee: If I may, Mr, Chairman, I have a question of counsel for clarification. A discrepancy between the English and French versions of the file pertaining to SOR/2005-415 was noted. The department said that the error would be corrected by use of an erratum. That is the first time I have seen that mechanism used to correct an error in a regulation. Why is it not used more often, when it sounds like such a simple fix? Could counsel explain why we could not use the erratum process more often rather the current practice?
Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, it was a printer's error. In the original certified true copies of the Order in Council passed by the Governor-in-Council, there was no error so this is not a case of changing the law. The simple printer's error will be corrected by the producers of the Canada Gazette. They have six months to make the correction. If the error is noted after six months, they will not publish an erratum.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Had it been an error in legislation as opposed to a printer's error, could an erratum be used?
Mr. Bernhardt: No, because then they would be changing the law. If there is a spelling mistake in the law, then that is the law.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Mr. Lee was fishing for a nice way to expedite some of these corrections, which is understandable. Thank you for that clarification, counsel.
SOR/2002-317 — EXPORT OF SUBSTANCES UNDER THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 9K:1)
Mr. Rousseau: Four points were raised in connection with this file. Amendments were promised in the case of the first three points raised in the letter sent by committee counsel on May 4, 2005. As for the fourth point, in a letter dated May 11, 2006, the department provided a satisfactory reply to the inquiry as to why an exporter must keep a copy of documents that in any event he has submitted to the department.
The issue here is simplifying the work of inspectors. If the committee has no objections, counsel will write to the department and request a progress report on the promised amendments and keep the committee apprised, as per usual, of any new developments.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are members agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Thank you.
SOR/2003-318 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BENZENE IN GASOLINE REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 9L:1)
Mr. Rousseau: Regarding this file, two points were raised by committee counsel in its letter dated February 8, 2006. In its letter of May 4, 2006, the department promised to make an amendment in the case of the second point raised. Regarding the first point raised, counsel had noted that paragraph 12(1)(b) of the regulations contained an unnecessary distinction.
Also in its letter of May 4, 2006, the department noted that it wanted to maintain this distinction to clearly indicate requirements with respect to the importation of gasoline. Since counsel is of the opinion that the distinction is at worst unnecessary, it is prepared to accept the department's view that no amendment to paragraph 12(1)(b) of the regulations is warranted. If the committee has no objections, counsel will monitor progress on the promised amendment and keep the committee apprised, as per usual, of any new developments.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are members agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2005-41 — PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TOXIC SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS, 2005
(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 9M:1)
Mr. Rousseau: Amendments were promised in response to comments made in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of counsel's letter dated May 4, 2005. A satisfactory reply was given in response to a question raised in the third paragraph of the letter.
Again, if the committee agrees, counsel will monitor this file, as per usual, and keep members apprised of any progress made on the promised amendments.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are members agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2004-199 — BANK HOLDING COMPANY PROPOSAL REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 9N:1)
Mr. Rousseau: This file pertains to bank holding company proposals made to the minister, pursuant to section 678 of the Bank Act. Pursuant to this provision, the Governor-in-Council may authorize the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to require additional information in respect of these proposals.
Section 12 of the regulations states that the minister may request additional information. Counsel wanted to know the reason why the power to require additional information is conferred on the minister rather than on the superintendent.
The department replied in its letter of April 27, 2006 that it was important for the minister to have the discretion to require other information in addition to the requirements set out in the regulations.
Since the application to carry out a proposal is made to the minister and since the Bank Act confers on the Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations in relation to these applications — a much more broadly worded power —, the department's reply can be deemed satisfactory. If the committee agrees, this file can be closed.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are members agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2005-363 —ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES ACT (TLICHO)
(For text of document, see Appendix O, p. 9O:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: A question was raised concerning a description of lands added to Schedule 1 of the act by this order, opposite the name of the Tlicho First Nation. It refers to the relevant land claims and self-government agreement ``as that agreement is amended from time to time.''
Other references to First Nations' agreements in the schedule simply name the agreements and do not include the words ``is amended from time to time.'' The department was asked why there should be this difference.
The Department of Finance has replied that the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act defines ``settlement land'' as land identified in a First Nations' final agreement, and the term ``final agreement'' is then defined to include future amendments.
On the other hand, the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement does not have a definition of ``settlement land.'' For this reason, it was considered necessary to expressly state that the description of the land is referring to the land claims agreement as amended from time to time.
However, section 2 of the Tlicho agreement does define ``agreement'' to mean the agreement, including any amendments made in future from time to time. A reference in Schedule 1 to these lands would indirectly encompass future amendments to the agreement.
The department does not dispute any of this, although it continues to maintain there is a need to remove any uncertainty by adding the wording in question.
It seems to me that any possible uncertainty exists only in the mind of the Department of Finance. On the other hand, there is nothing that turns on the matter. If the department feels the need to expressly repeat what would be the case in any event, I suppose there is no harm done. Unless members feel strongly otherwise, we could simply close the file.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Or call Mr. Flaherty to come to the committee. No, I think we have a good recommendation here. Is it agreed?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2003-6—REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 9P:1)
SOR/2005-109 —SURFACE COATING MATERIALS REGULATIONS
(For text of document, see Appendix Q, p. 9Q:1)
SOR/2005-186 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MIGRATORY BIRDS REGULATIONS
(For text of document, see Appendix R, p. 9R:1)
SOR/2005-266 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (TEST WIND TURBINES)
(For text of document, see Appendix S, p. 9S:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: Following the usual procedure, if members wish, we could deal with the instruments under the headings ``action promised,'' ``action taken'' and ``statutory instruments without comment'' as three groups.
The four files under ``action promised'' represent five amendments promised to the committee. Progress reports on these will be requested. In addition, the amendments made to the Migratory Birds Regulations, SOR/2005-186, permit a file to be closed that had been ongoing for more than 25 years.
SOR/2006-73 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY REGULATIONS
(For text of document, see Appendix T, p. 9T:1)
SOR/2006-122 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES REGULATIONS (DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY EQUIPMENT) (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
(For text of document, see Appendix U, p. 9U:1)
SOR/2006-225 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DNA IDENTIFICATION REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
(For text of document, see Appendix V, p. 9V:1)
SOR/2006-227 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY FITNESS CERTIFICATE REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
(For text of document, see Appendix W, p. 9W:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: Under ``action taken,'' the instruments there this morning make 16 amendments that had been asked for by the committee. Of particular significance are the amendments to the Atlantic Pilotage Authority Regulations. These amendments eliminate two fees for which the committee decided there was no enabling authority.
SI/2006-77 — ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FEE REMISSION ORDER
SI/2006-90 — NEW BRUNSWICK TEACHERS' FEDERATION GROUP INSURANCE TRUSTEE REMISSION ORDER
SI/2006-116 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 26, 2006 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
SI/2006-117 — MAUREEN COULTER INCOME TAX AND EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS REMISSION ORDER
SI/2006-118 — EDUARDO SESE INCOME TAX REMISSION ORDER
SI/2006-119 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF NON-CIRCULATION COINS OF THE DENOMINATION OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
SI/2006-120 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF NON-CIRCULATION COINS OF THE DENOMINATION OF THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS
SI/2006-124 — VALLEY GOSPEL MISSION REMISSION ORDER
SI/2006-125 — SANDRA MARRIOTT INCOME TAX REMISSION ORDER
SOR/94-410 — EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS REGULATIONS
SOR/2002-436 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990
SOR/2003-411 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS, 1996
SOR/2003-416 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONTRAVENTIONS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-15 — CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-87 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-118 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-146 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-189 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONTRAVENTIONS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-190 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONTRAVENTIONS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-192 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE REGULATIONS, 1988
SOR/2004-193 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-196 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-213 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2004-4
SOR/2004-258 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2004-5
SOR/2004-267 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AUTHORIZATIONS TO CARRY RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND CERTAIN HANDGUNS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-268 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SHOOTING CLUBS AND SHOOTING RANGES REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-269 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AUTHORIZATIONS TO TRANSPORT RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND PROHIBITED FIREARMS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-272 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FIREARMS FEES REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-275 — FIREARMS MARKING REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-276 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FIREARMS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-277 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STORAGE, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS BY INDIVIDUALS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-278 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STORAGE, DISPLAY AND TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS BY BUSINESSES REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-279 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF TRANSFERRING FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-302 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PACIFIC PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS
SOR/2004-308 — ELECTRONIC ALTERNATIVES REGULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY AND FEDERAL IMMOVABLES ACT
SOR/2004-315 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS, 1998
SOR/2004-318 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS, 1996
SOR/2005-19 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ANIMALS OF THE FAMILY BOVIDAE AND THEIR PRODUCTS IMPORTATION PROHIBITION REGULATIONS, NO. 2
SOR/2005-33 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES REGULATIONS (TANNING EQUIPMENT)
SOR/2005-71 — ORDER AMENDING THE IMPORT CONTROL LIST
SOR/2005-78 — CERTAIN RUMINANTS AND THEIR PRODUCTS IMPORTATION PROHIBITION REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-97 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-113 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN BIRDS DESTROYED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AVIAN INFLUENZA) REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-115 — BY-LAW AMENDING THE CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION DEPOSIT INSURANCE POLICY BY-LAW
SOR/2005-116 — BY-LAW AMENDING THE CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION DIFFERENTIAL PREMIUMS BY-LAW
SOR/2005-117 — BY-LAW AMENDING THE CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION PRESCRIBED PRACTICES PREMIUM SURCHARGE BY-LAW
SOR/2005-120 — TORONTO PORT AUTHORITY REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-136 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CREWING REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-188 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVINCIAL LAWS REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-210 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ACCOUNTING FOR IMPORTED GOODS AND PAYMENT OF DUTIES REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-211 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CUSTOMS SUFFERANCE WAREHOUSES REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-212 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DUTY FREE SHOP REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-215 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STORAGE OF GOODS REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-232 — ORDER AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE CAUSING THE EXTRAORDINARY DISRUPTION OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN RELATION TO CONTAINER MOVEMENTS INTO AND OUT OF CERTAIN PORTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
SOR/2005-234 — ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE CAUSING THE EXTRAORDINARY DISRUPTION OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN RELATION TO CONTAINER MOVEMENTS INTO AND OUT OF CERTAIN PORTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
SOR/2005-239 — ORDER AMENDING THE IMPORT CONTROL LIST
SOR/2005-258 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NON-RESIDENTS' TEMPORARY IMPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND CONVEYANCES REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-259 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SHIPS' STORES REGULATIONS
SOR/2005-268 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1985
Mr. Bernhardt: Finally, this morning, under ``statutory instruments without comment,'' we have 59 instruments that have been reviewed and have been found to conform to all of the committee's scrutiny criteria.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there any further items? Seeing none, our next meeting is in two weeks, on March 1.
The committee adjourned.