---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 15 - Evidence of May 31, 2007

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, May 31, 2007

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

Senator J. Trevor Eyton and Mr. Paul Szabo (Joint Chairmen) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Good morning, colleagues. Welcome to our meeting. Let us go right to our agenda, which was circulated to you.

PARKS CANADA MASTER LIST OF FEES 2003-2004

(For text of document, see Appendix A, p. 15A:1)

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: On June 5, 2006, the joint chairman wrote to the Minister of the Environment, setting out in detail the committee's view that charges for a licence to sell alcoholic beverages in certain national parks and national historic sites that are based on gross purchases for sale under the licence are ultra vires because they constitute a tax on the activity to be carried out under the licence.

While noting that in the case of Jasper National Park, the fees in question had been upheld by the trial division of the Federal Court in the decision in 620 Connaught Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) as constituting valid regulatory fees that were not a tax, the June 5 letter also pointed out that the trial judgment did not deal with what the committee has always considered the most telling aspect of the liquor licence fees, which is their prospective nature. If the amount of the charge cannot be determined at the time the licence is issued, the charge in question may be said to constitute a tax on the business to be carried out under the licence.

Subsequent to sending this letter, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed the conclusion reached at trial. A copy of that judgment is attached in the materials this morning.

While noting that the fees in question bore the essential characteristics of a tax, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that even a fee that has these characteristics will not be a tax if it is imposed primarily for regulatory purposes, or is necessarily incidental to a broader regulatory scheme. The court held there was a significant connection between the licence fees and the scheme regulating the use of the national park to characterize the fee as a regulatory charge and not as a tax.

Members have before them this morning a note that summarizes and discusses the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. However, leave has been granted to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In view of this situation, it might be desirable, at least for the time being, to await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there questions?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): Regarding the appeal itself, why would that happen and who has the carriage?

Mr. Bernhardt: A collection of bar and restaurant owners in the town of Jasper contested these fees, making the argument that they constituted an illegal tax.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): Is there a further appeal now?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): Who is managing that?

Mr. Bernhardt: Again, it is the same collection of business people from Jasper. As I say, they were unsuccessful at trial and at the Court of Appeal. They then sought leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. Recently, I think in January or February, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave. Notice of appeal has been filed, so that appeal will proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Lee: This area is interesting. It has occupied us in part for the last few years, the most recent iteration being the broadcast licence fees.

Our view appears to have prevailed on that issue. What has happened here, in my view, is that the field, scope and spectrum of government charges have proliferated in quality. In the past, we had this paradigm where we looked at something as essentially a fee for service and then we had a tax, which is a revenue generator.

Now we are forced to recognize — and we have recognized — another vehicle out there that raises money, or for which the government charges, which is the licence or a right to do something. Presumably, when that happens, there is a capital interest or value to that interest for which the government has been allowed to charge the going rate. If the government owns the train station, then the government may charge a rent or fee to the lessee for taking over the train station and running it. In this town inside a national park, the government has decided that the licence it grants to do something should be treated like a capital asset and charged for.

We need more analysis, and the Supreme Court will have a close look at this. I understand the difficulty that the courts have had to date in looking at this issue. They have imposed upon us a new paradigm whereby the government charges for a capital asset, right or privilege. After examining the legislation, the courts can see what Parliament has envisaged. Is it the role of this joint committee to step in and try to figure out how much that rent should be? Is that the problem?

I have two questions and one suggestion. First, where do all the revenues go from the charges for these licences? Do they go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund or back into the till to run the relevant particular park. Counsel might know the answer. As well, are the revenues substantial? Are they the equivalent of the value of the right or licence to carry on the economic activity? The answers to those questions are probably part of the analysis that both this committee and the courts should do, given that the committee runs in tandem with the courts on the issue.

Second, should this committee indirectly participate in any way, which would be wise to do, in the Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the issue? I think that the committee was stupid, dumb and ill-advised not to participate in a long- ago Federal Court of Appeal hearing on the matter in which Mr. Justice Marceau came to a conclusion completely contrary to that of the joint committee in the Kemano exemption case, 1992. I regretted that Mr. Justice Marceau did not have the benefit of the work of the joint committee on the case. His judgment, respectfully from a parliamentary perspective, was wrong.

Therefore, I ask members to consider asking committee counsel to contact the appellants in this case and ensure that the joint committee's briefs to date on these items, both on the broadcast licence fee and on this file, be made available to the appellants. There is no need to hesitate to ensure that the court notes and the committee notes are engaged in the same envelope. The determination now is where the joint committee stands on this set of fees. Until I have more information, I will continue to have difficulty with the matter, as the court has.

Mr. Dewar: I will intervene on the subject in general terms and I will not be as detailed as Mr. Lee's interesting ideas. This issue falls into the same category as other files that the committee has dealt with whereby counsel was instructed to review over the summer and determine the direction that the committee can provide to government when writing policies so these quagmires do not continue to occur. Mr. Lee has identified the phenomenon of this grey area of knowing when a tax is a tax, when it is a fee and how it applies? Far be it from me to stand in the way of affecting the Supreme Court. As importantly, though, the big picture is to ensure that the committee includes this file in its overview that takes place over the summer. Do we have any idea how long this case will take? Are there any comments?

Mr. Bernhardt: Leave to appeal was granted and a notice of appeal was filed this winter. Things are at an early stage so it will likely be some time from now.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): What is the usual lapse of time on such a case?

Mr. Bernhardt: The norm might be two years or so, although it varies depending on the circumstances of each case. Counsel could look at the time frames for more general, run-of-the-mill cases. This matter is not a human rights issue or a matter of someone being incarcerated, deported or in imminent peril. I suspect the case will go through the normal hopper of the Supreme Court, and 18 months is as good a guess as any other.

Mr. Epp: I have a broad-based question. As long as I have been in Parliament, near the end of every bill, we see words to the effect of the Governor-in-Council may make such fees or set fees. When Parliament assents to a bill, it has legislative authority to set the fees. I am also thinking of provincial and municipal governments who regularly sell business licences, et cetera. It would be difficult to argue, when a business licence is charged by the City of Edmonton, for example, that there is a tangible return as a fee for service. Yet, they do this kind of thing regularly and no one seems to object. Perhaps counsel can enlighten me on the real issue?

Mr. Bernhardt: The real issue is that the law makes a clear distinction between a fee and a tax. When Parliament grants the power to fix a fee, that power cannot be used in a manner such that the actual thing charged crosses the line from a fee and becomes a tax. The law sets out certain criteria for a fee and certain characteristics of a tax to distinguish the two.

In this case, the question arises because the so-called established fee is, I believe, 3 per cent of the value of the liquor that the bar purchases for sale under the licence.

Mr. Epp: It is almost akin to a sales tax.

Mr. Bernhardt: When a restaurant owner goes to the municipal government to apply for a licence and asks how much the fee is, the owner is told that the municipal government does not know. The owner returns one year later with receipts and the municipal government then calculates how much the owner owes the town for the licence.

That begins to look like a business tax in the eyes of this committee, and the bar owners in Jasper, Alberta, are arguing that position as well. The Supreme Court of Canada must answer the question: Is that still a fee or does it cross the line and become a tax on that business?

Mr. Epp: If Parks Canada were to tell these people that they must pay a fee of $5,000 each year —

Mr. Bernhardt: — then we would not be sitting here talking about it because there would not be a problem.

Mr. Epp: I appreciate that explanation.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): A key factor is the cost of the regulatory scheme. We would be interested to see the exact figures because there might be a disproportionate relationship, as with the licensing fee, for example.

Mr. Bernhardt: We have some of that information to answer in part some of those questions.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): If we go into this matter, it will take a while. One year ago, June 2006, the committee took a position and reported to the then Environment Minister, Ms. Ambrose, that this charge was ultra vires and constituted a tax, which is not the finding of the court. Now, the issue is under appeal and more things are happening.

The Broadcast Act case was indicative of the kinds of arguments that will be made. We will see many more differences.

It is clear that it is the fees versus the tax issue. They must justify that the business incurs real costs that can be attributable or that must be recouped, because they do not do it for nothing. They do not allow or make the arrangements with whatever other outside agencies to be able to provide these services and to monitor them and do this on an ongoing basis. There are all kinds of neat arguments.

I suggest we move on this one. Since the issue looks like one that members should know a fair bit about, I will ask counsel if the staff can put together a document that will identify terminology, case reference on decisions and some of the points for consideration that we will see in this kind of thing in a succinct type of primer so we have some focus to our work. It is not only this case. Other issues the same or similar have come up. I suspect they will continue to come up before this committee.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): Picking up on Mr. Lee's second suggestion, can we also consider how this committee might intervene in the proceedings before the Supreme Court?

Mr. Bernhardt: I can advise the committee that the lawyers for the appellants are aware of the committee's interest in this matter and have been following proceedings of the committee and the documents that have come out of the committee on this issue. That much I know.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): For our next meeting, can we also have a consideration of that question about whether this committee has some role to play, if there is precedent for Parliament and pros and cons. I have a feeling it is not as simple as, let us go to the court and let them know how we feel. There may be good reason why we should not take a position while the matter is before the courts.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): The issue goes right to the heart of what we do.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Understood.

Mr. Lee: Irrespective of who is right and who is wrong, our job is to constrain the birth of little Sheriffs of Nottingham in government. When we write a law, we must ensure — and Parliament has religiously guarded this whole area of taxation — that we do not impose on our citizens a regime that is unconstrained in law. If it looks like a tax and smells like a tax, we are in charge. That is our job.

Therefore, given that responsibility, the only question at this point is who will draft the new benchmarks, the new descriptors in this area? Do we have a role? We certainly do, as Senator Eyton points out. This is our work. We are a Scrutiny of Regulations Committee and not a drafting of taxation law committee.

I think we can sit back and let the court decide, but I do not think we should sit back and not try to inform the court, either directly or through counsel.

You have asked counsel to come back with a bit of a workup on this issue. I do not know if he knows clearly what he is looking at.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I am not sure, but there may be another reason why this committee ought to advise the government that the government should take the lead on this.

Mr. Lee: The government will be unconstrained. The government wants it the way it is. The government wants the ambiguity and the revenue. It is our job to ensure our citizens are protected and when a tax is passed, it is passed properly.

I think we need to be fairly aggressive, at a minimum, in pointing out that we have to rewrite a piece of the rule book here. The question is: Will we let the courts do it? Will government do it? I do not have the answer. At a minimum, I ask that we ensure our counsel is authorized to be in communication with both the appellants and the government respondents in this.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Would the Department of Justice be involved?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, the Attorney General would be involved.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): They already will be involved in the case anyway?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Let us consider points about whether or not we come to the determination that this is a matter we need to inform ourselves about and agree upon an approach, or authorize an approach, for our prospective participation.

Mr. Bernhardt: Nothing prevents the committee from pursuing this matter, notwithstanding it is before the courts. As happened in the Kemano case, the committee is free to take a different view than the courts.

As for where the solution lies, the power to make these fees lies with Parks Canada. If the court strikes them down, they strike them down, but even if the court upholds these fees, it does not preclude the committee from suggesting they are inappropriate.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): We will receive some direction on this issue. It is important enough that we do a bit of work before we have open discussion on it. I think we will probably do that at our next meeting since the House will have risen by then. There is probably a fair bit of work to do. Is that approach agreeable?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-284 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix B, p. 15B:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: A producer who delivers grain to an elevator receives a receipt. This receipt entitles the producer to delivery of an equal quantity of grain of the same quality or to payment for the grain.

The result of the repeal of section 43(1) of the Canada Grain Regulations by this instrument is that an elevator operator is no longer required automatically to issue a cash purchase ticket after 90 days. The intent was to remove the requirement that the operator automatically provide payment in full to producers for grain after 90 days from delivery.

The committee has taken the position that section 68.1 of the Canada Grain Act must be read as requiring the prescribing of such a period. This is because section 68.1 also provides that a holder of a receipt is entitled to delivery of grain only if the receipt is surrendered within a prescribed period. The absence of such a period seems to lead to the conclusion that the holder of the receipt is no longer entitled to delivery of grain. This conclusion is clearly not what the act contemplates.

In addition, support for the committee's view can be found in the parliamentary record pertaining to the enactment of section 68.1.

In the chairman's February 15 letter to the minister, it was submitted that if it has now been decided that the holder of a receipt should no longer be entitled to delivery of grain only if the receipt is surrendered within a prescribed period, then section 68.1 of the act must be revoked.

The minister states that he remains of the view that there is no requirement to prescribe a time. At the same time, he does intend to address the committee's concerns when considering amendments resulting from the December 2006 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. This being the case, it might be appropriate to write back to the minister asking when it is expected these amendments might be introduced.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-273 — TOBACCO REPORTING REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix C, p. 15C:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Amendments to these regulations, including a number promised to the committee, were prepublished in Part I of the Canada Gazette in 2001. Still other outstanding issues were pursued, and satisfactory responses or undertakings to make further amendments were ultimately given as well. To date, no amendments have been made.

Counsel encountered some difficulty in obtaining an indication as to when these amendments could be expected. Finally, the Minister of Health, in his February 26 reply, advises that the response to the 2001 prepublication led to a further review and additional amendments. Given the number and the substantive nature of the changes and the time that has now elapsed, there will be a new prepublication. This is anticipated to take place in the third quarter of this year.

If it is satisfactory to the committee, counsel will monitor to see whether this prepublication in the third quarter turns out to be the case.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-1 — PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE CHICKEN FARMERS OF CANADA PROCLAMATION

(For text of document, see Appendix D, p. 15D:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Six points were raised with the National Farm Products Council. The council promised amendments to deal with points three and four. It is suggested the explanation given on point five can be taken as satisfactory.

The three remaining matters are dealt with in the note that is before members this morning. To summarize briefly, the first point concerns the definition of ``chicken'' in section 1 of the schedule, which includes processed chicken. For reasons explained in the note, the question was raised whether a proclamation under Part II of the act could deal with processed farm products.

On an earlier file, where the same issue came up, the council agreed with the committee. Its latest response, however, raises some new points and suggests that what appeared to be an issue of validity may be no more than a drafting problem.

The council makes the argument, and provides some supporting jurisprudence, that the marketing of an agricultural product necessarily implies some element that can be likened to processing — for example, in this case, simply cutting up a chicken into parts. Even if this is the case, however, if the phrase ``in processed form'' refers only to chicken parts that can be marketed, perhaps the definition of ``chicken'' should be amended to reflect this situation. Rather than having to interpret the definition in a narrow manner, it could simply state what is and is not permitted. That is only a point of drafting at this stage.

Point two concerns the definition of ``Operating Agreement'' in section 5. Part of this definition includes schedule B to the federal-provincial agreement for chicken, as amended from time to time. This is another case of a so-called ambulatory incorporation by reference for which there is no authority.

As members will recall from the last meeting, it has always been the view of the committee that these sorts of incorporations involve a sub-delegation of power: Unless there is express or necessarily implied authority, they are unlawful. Members may recall that at the last meeting, counsel was directed to prepare a draft report dealing with this issue, as it cuts across a number of the committee's files.

The reply from the National Farm Products Council relies on arguments that have been raised before elsewhere, and that have been rejected by the committee. This being the case — and pending the possible report in the fall — this issue perhaps could be pursued also with the responsible minister on this file.

Point six deals with subsection 12.1 of the schedule. This subsection states that unpaid fees, levies and charges constitute a debt payable to the Chicken Farmers of Canada at the time prescribed in their orders and regulations, and may be sued for and recovered by the agency. The problem is that the act stipulates that the proclamation adopted by the Governor-in-Council set out the deadline after which an agency can take legal action. Subsection 12.1 attempts to expand the scope of the act by allowing the agency to do this, rather than the Governor-in-Council.

The National Farm Products Council has acknowledged that an amendment is desirable for the purpose of clarification. Perhaps a clearer indication of exactly what they intend to do might be asked for. In short, I suggest pursuing these three points in a further letter to the agency.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2006-177 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF ROUGH DIAMONDS ACT

(For text of document, see Appendix E, p. 15E:1)

Lindsay Armstrong (Legal Counsel): The amendment was registered 11 days after having been passed.

However, subsection 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act requires that a regulation be transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council within seven days of it being passed. The Department of Natural Resources replied that the amendment had been transmitted to the clerk on August 4, 2006, seven days after it was passed.

As the department seems to have complied with the timelines established by subsection 5(1) of the act, the file can be closed.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2006-102 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE ``FIRE PREVENTION WEEK''

(For text of document, see Appendix F, p. 15F:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Legal counsel has simply pointed out to the Privy Council Office an error in the English version published in the Canada Gazette.

If the committee is in agreement, the file can be closed.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-111 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

(For text of document, see Appendix G, p. 15G:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: An amendment was made to these regulations in 2001, requiring calves transported for slaughter to be transported in accordance with the provisions of the recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals.

At the time, the committee took the position that since it sought to regulate humane transportation of animals, this issue fell outside the scope of the Meat Inspection Act. The act is concerned only with the wholesomeness of the meat products.

In May 2004, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency agreed to revoke this provision and indicated that the Health of Animals Regulations would be amended at the same time to provide for the humane transportation of calves. Then the agency reported that, first, it needed to develop a draft policy on the humane transport of animals generally.

In view of this response, counsel was instructed by the committee to ask the agency to proceed with the promised revocation, as well as a time frame for the revocation.

In its last letter, the agency reiterates that consultations are ongoing, but that this entire area is a sensitive one, and removing an illegal provision before the overall framework is developed would not speed up the process. No indication is given as to how long this matter is expected to take. Of course, revocation now would speed up the removal of an illegal provision.

The latest response is clearly unsatisfactory. It is suggested that perhaps the cooperation of the Minister of Agriculture could be sought to ensure the promised action is taken without further delay. At the least, an assurance could be asked for not to enforce this provision — which is unlawful — pending its revocation.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-254 — FIRST NATIONS OIL AND GAS AND MONEYS MANAGEMENT VOTING REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix H, p. 15H:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Three points were raised by counsel in a letter dated November 28, 2006. First, counsel questioned a statement in the Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement, indicating that the council of a First Nation that intends to conduct a vote under the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act is expected to choose its electoral officer from an established pool of qualified officers. This obligation is not contained in the regulations.

In response, the department states that although the regulations do not preclude the First Nation from selecting a different electoral officer that may not be from the established pool, there is a requirement for the band council resolution identifying the electoral officer to be accepted by the department.

A letter should be sent to the department requesting an explanation as to the source of this requirement.

Second, counsel pointed out that because the term ``eligible voter'' is defined in section 20 of the act, it is unnecessary to make reference to that definition in the regulations. The third point concerns the use of the phrase ``properly seal'' in section 15.

In its response, the department describes the practice employed by trained electoral officers and departmental officials when sealing the ballot box. A further letter could be sent to the department suggesting that the details of the process contemplated by the expression ``properly seal'' should be contained in the regulations, or else the word ``properly'' should be removed.

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

Mr. Epp: I have a bit of a concern about removing the words ``properly seal'' before this is done. I am a little confused on the sequence of things. The ballot box should be properly sealed, and I think the lack here is a definition of what that means.

When counsel said we should otherwise take out the word ``properly,'' I disagree with that.

Mr. Bernhardt: The suggestion was more a prod for them to see that if they want it to say ``properly,'' they should say what ``properly'' is. If you think there is a danger that they would simply react by deleting the word, then we will not raise that possibility as an option.

Mr. Epp: I would rather not raise that option.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is fine.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2002-142 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (EDÉHZHIE (HORN PLATEAU), N.W.T.)

(For text of document, see Appendix I, p. 15I:1)

Ms. Armstrong: An undertaking was provided to amend this order in response to concerns initially communicated by the committee in November 2004. In November 2005, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada advised that it was preparing a miscellaneous submission, which included amendments to address the committee's concerns.

The department advised in January 2007 that a new order is being drafted, which will revoke and replace the existing order and take into account the committee's concerns. If the committee agrees, counsel will write to the department to request an update.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/84-432 — LICENSING AND ARBITRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/96-363 — LICENSING AND ARBITRATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

Ms. Armstrong: A number of amendments to these regulations were agreed to and a number have been made. Most recently, amendments were published as SOR/2006-221 on October 4, 2006, as part of a miscellaneous amendment package.

In March 2006, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency advised that the outstanding amendments to SOR/96-363 had been removed from the package of draft amendments that were eventually published in October 2006. The agency advised that a new package was being created for these amendments.

In connection with SOR/84-432, amendments promised in relation to section 7 and section 10 of Part II of Schedule II remain outstanding. The agency advised that these amendments have been included in a separate miscellaneous amendments package, which has been submitted to the Department of Justice for review. A letter could be sent to request a progress report and updated time line in respect of the outstanding amendments for both regulations.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/91-152 — CHLOROBIPHENYLS REGULATIONS

Ms. Armstrong: The proposed regulation on chlorobiphenyls was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on November 4, 2006, for a 60-day comment period as required by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. In January 2007, Environment Canada advised that the new regulations should be published in the Canada Gazette, Part II in 2007. If the committee is in agreement, counsel could write to ask where matters now stand.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

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

(For text of document, see Appendix J, p. 15J:1)

Ms. Armstrong: By letter dated December 5, 2006, counsel questioned when the amendments to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act were expected to be brought into force. The legislative amendments were brought into force on March 1, 2007, as was forecast in the department's letter of January 15, 2007. Counsel will continue to monitor this file and keep the committee informed in the usual manner.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/96-170 — NATIONAL PARK GARBAGE REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of document, see Appendix K, p. 15K:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Parks Canada has advised that the points raised by the committee have been taken into consideration and that a proposed amendment has been drafted and sent to the Regulations Section of the Department of Justice.

The amended version of section 15 now provides a reasonable period of time for the payment of garbage removal fees. If the committee is in agreement, counsel could continue to monitor progress.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2003-378 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL SERVICES AND FEES REGULATIONS

(For text of the document, see Appendix L, p. 15L:1)

Ms. Armstrong: An amendment to correct a discrepancy between the English and the French versions of subsection 16(2) of the regulations has been promised.

In a letter dated January 8, 2007, Canada Post Corporation indicated that the promised amendment will be included in the changes planned for December 2007. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will continue to follow the file.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Cannan: Did they provide a reason why it will not be ready by January 15?

Ms. Armstrong: I do not believe they provided a reason. At that time, they had amended section 16(1) of the regulation. Counsel wrote to request why the amendment to section 16(2) had not been done at that time.

Mr. Bernhardt: Counsel could ask again.

Mr. Cannan: Otherwise that would give them another year with no explanation.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

[Translation]

SOR/2003-379 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MATERIALS FOR THE USE OF THE BLIND REGULATIONS

(For text of the document, see Appendix M, p. 15M:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Canada Post Corporation advises that the promised amendment in the French version of the regulation will also be included in the changes planned for December 2007.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel will continue to monitor progress.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-245 — NATIONAL PARKS FISHING REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/97-111 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL PARKS FISHING REGULATIONS

SOR/98-268 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL PARKS FISHING REGULATIONS

SOR/99-352 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL PARKS FISHING REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix N, p. 15N:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: A number of amendments to deal with points of drafting and clarification have been promised, and it was initially forecast that these would be made in 2003. As can be seen from the correspondence, 2003 became 2005, and then 2006. Last December, Parks Canada gave up forecasting a specific time and simply reported that the amendments would be made as soon as possible.

On the other hand, as of December proposed amendments had been prepared and were on the verge of being sent off to the Department of Justice for review. This being the case, some progress apparently was made, although another request for an update would seem to be in order.

Senator Moore: If I may interrupt, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the previous item, will we ask for an update on progress within a set time period or will we drift along for another year? Can we ask for an update within the month?

Mr. Bernhardt: We receive regular updates but the problem is that the date in the update is continually pushed back. I hope that by now these things will be in the hands of the Department of Justice for the review and that we will see them in the Canada Gazette soon. We can ask for a time frame as to when they expect this process to be completed.

Senator Moore: Thank you.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-297 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix O, p. 15O:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Industry Canada agreed to amend section 143 of the regulations to correct a discrepancy between the English and French versions. In December 2006, Measurement Canada advised that the promised amendment has been included in a regulatory initiative that will also include adding three new sections to the regulations. We are advised that the drafting is in progress and that the amendments will be submitted in the course of 2007-08. Given the nature of the amendment, this progress would seem to be acceptable. If committee agrees, counsel will continue to monitor the progress.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-265 — SHIP STATION (RADIO) TECHNICAL REGULATIONS, 1999

(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 15P:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Ten points were raised initially by counsel with respect to this instrument. Nine out of the 10 suggested amendments were made by SOR/2006-291 published on December 13, 2006. The tenth point raised by counsel concerned a suggested change in the wording to the French version of section 42(b). Transport Canada advised that they decided not to make the suggested change because they concluded that the expression ``application des lois'' in the French version is an appropriate equivalent of ``law enforcement'' in the English version. If the committee accepts this conclusion, the file can be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-416 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-409 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

Ms. Armstrong: Seven points were raised initially in connection with these instruments. A number of amendments were made by SOR/2005-192. Action has been promised on all the outstanding amendments, namely to sections 183(1), 183(3), 183(5), sections 183(7) to 183(10) and the English version of section 189(4). The Canadian Food Inspection Agency advised in July of last year that all the amendments were being included in a miscellaneous regulatory amendment package that would be published in Part II of the Canada Gazette later that year.

If the committee agrees, counsel will follow up with the agency and request a report on the current status of the amendments.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-167 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2004-280 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

Mr. Bernhardt: Some 27 points were raised in counsel's letter of May 5, 2006. We have a promise of amendment to address 18 of these points. The replies provided on points 1, 19, 20 and 23, it is suggested, can be accepted as satisfactory.

That leaves five points, which is to say items 6, 8, the second paragraph of point 11, points 15 and 16. Each of these is addressed in turn in the note included in this morning's materials. I will try to go through each of those briefly in turn if members will bear with me.

Point 6 concerns an issue that the committee is familiar with. It is a provision of the regulations that provides that the operator of a registered establishment shall comply with all the conditions of the licence to operate the establishment. It has been the position of the committee that provisions such as this one attempt to create criminal liability for breach of conditions set out in administrative documents, for instance the licence or registration. The agency seeks to rely on two decisions from the B.C. provincial court. The committee looked closely at these decisions when it reviewed the Ontario Fishery Regulations and concluded that neither of them constituted a precedent that would lead it to change its opinion as to the invalidity of provisions of this type.

Point 8 noted that one of the conditions to be met by the president of the agency to suspend a licence is that a notice of suspension must be sent to the operator. In other words, there can be no suspension until there has been a notice that there has been a suspension. It is a bit of a Catch-22. It turns out that what the agency sends is a notice of intent to suspend. However, the regulation should be redrafted to reflect this.

Point 11 concerns a provision that appears to duplicate powers to acquire documents that Parliament has already delegated to inspectors in the act itself. The agency replied that they did this because operators were reluctant to provide the documents required under the act. They wanted to put this in the regulations to reinforce the fact that they were required to comply with the law. It goes without saying that it is not the role of a regulation to reinforce a duty imposed by the act directly as passed by Parliament simply because people do not feel inclined to respect the law. The provision is clearly unnecessary.

Point 15 deals with two sections in the regulations that require an operator or importer who learns that their product could be dangerous to the health of the public to inform an inspector, and also concerns recall procedures the operator or importer must devise. Provisions such as these require express authority because they impose substantive legal obligations.

The agency seeks to rely on a general power to make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the act as well as a hodgepodge of other provisions, depending on the particular case, for importers or operators. I suggest the reply simply serves to confirm there is no enabling authority for these sections.

Finally, we have point 16 concerning the authority for section 60.3 of the regulations. It requires that the operator prepare written procedures that conform to the requirements set out in the Food Safety Enhancement Program manual and maintain these records. None of the enabling provisions cited by the agency expressly authorizes the adoption of these requirements and, again, the agency seems to feel adoption is implied in other enabling provisions. If that is their view, they should be asked to explain in detail why that is the case. I suggest, then, these five points need to be followed up in a further letter.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-438 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, 2002-2 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix Q, p. 15Q:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: As mentioned in the note, this instrument made seven amendments the committee requested. It also, in turn, gave rise to three new points. There is a promise to make an amendment to deal with point 3. That leaves points 1 and 2.

Point 1 concerns the question of whether certain terminology used in Part II of the regulations is or is not consistent with that used in act itself. The agency explains the reasons for adopting the terminology in the French version it did and it is suggested this terminology is satisfactory.

Point 2 deals with the provision in the regulations that is apparently intended to require the holder of a permit or licence who becomes aware of a deficiency in a veterinary biologic to report the deficiency. This requirement is perfectly logical. Unfortunately, it is not what the section says.

It requires the holder of a licence to make this report within 15 days after the date on which the information or evidence is known to the holder of the licence or within 15 days after it becomes generally known to the industry.

Because these two circumstances are juxtaposed, it must be taken that there will be instances where it is known generally to the industry, but somehow not to the particular operator. In this case, the operator is still required to report it even though the operator does not know about it.

It is not clear from this reply that the agency grasps the point. It is simply a matter of reformulating the section to make sense. They say there is no need to amend the section because they understand what it means. This explanation is hardly a reason not to have it say what it means and I suggest we pursue the point.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-283 — SOLVENT DEGREASING REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix R, p. 15R:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Three points were raised in counsel's letter of March 30, 2005. It is submitted that the response provided to point 3 is satisfactory.

Amendments were promised with respect to points 1 and 2. In December, Environment Canada advised that they foresaw making the amendments in 2010 after a review of the regulation's effectiveness in reaching risk management objectives.

The question is whether this amount of time is reasonable. If the proposal is acceptable to the committee, counsel will monitor the progress and keep the committee informed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-536 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONSULAR SERVICES FEES REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix S, p. 15S:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Section 4 of the regulations provides for a non-refundable fee of $25 payable at the time an application for a travel document is made. The enabling provision in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, however, authorizes the Governor-in-Council to prescribe the amount, time and manner of payment of fees for documents issued by the minister. Section 4 is clearly ultra vires because it permits the collection of a fee even in circumstances in which, at the end of the day, no document is actually issued.

The Department of Foreign Affairs indicated that consideration was to be given to amending the act retroactively to provide for imposing an application fee. At its November 9, 2006 meeting, the committee instructed counsel to ask whether this amendment would be made and, if not, what remedy was proposed.

The January reply from the department advises they are actively pursuing a legislative solution and that significant progress has been made. At the same time, this reply may be seen to be a little bit vague. The department could be asked to clarify precisely what this legislative solution is and how long they expect it to take.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2006-111 — ORDER AMENDING THE SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL BAR ORDER ``NATO-OTAN''

(For text of document, see Appendix T, p. 15T:1)

Ms. Armstrong: As indicated in the correspondence, counsel questioned the legal authority for this order, which was made under the special service medal regulations. I suggest a satisfactory explanation was received from the Privy Council Office. If the committee agrees, the file can be closed.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Canada National Parks Act, s. 24(3)

SOR/97-150 — NATIONAL PARKS AIRCRAFT ACCESS REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-123 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix U, p. 15U:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee spent considerable time on this series of files. In the course of reviewing the aircraft access regulations, it was noted that although under the terms of the Canada National Parks Act, aircraft access permits were actually regulations, none of them had ever been registered and published in the Canada Gazette, as required by the Statutory Instruments Act.

The Statutory Instruments Regulations have now been amended to provide an exemption from registration and publication for licences and permits issued under the Canada National Parks Act. It then remained to reissue all permits issued before this exemption was made, and which had not yet expired.

Last October, Parks Canada advised all permits had been reissued in the case of the aircraft access permits. As of January, the same apparently has been done for all other permits, licences and authorizations issued under the act. This completes the necessary remedial action.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there any questions?

Mr. Epp: What does this issue refer to? I have a number of friends who are pilots, and they have expressed to me at various times a problem where Parks Canada, namely in Banff and Jasper national parks, says they cannot land there. The pilots say that when they fly in that area, if they run into trouble, they need to land somewhere. If they cannot land on the airstrip provided there, then they must land on the road, which is much more dangerous.

They were wondering whether landing there was in some violation of the Aeronautics Act. Do you have any information on that?

Mr. Bernhardt: I do not know that. I know that under the National Parks Act, they need a permit to land aircraft in a national park. If they do not have that permit and their engine dies when are flying over a national park, I hope Parks Canada would not charge them for landing in a park without an access permit. I would have thought some provision in the regulation somewhere gives an exemption in the case of an emergency. If not, we could ask the agency about it.

Mr. Epp: I think we should look into it.

Mr. Bernhardt: One would hope common sense prevails.

Mr. Epp: Who decides whether to enforce a regulation?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): Going back to my many years ago at law school, there was a common law right to safe harbour applying to ships. I would have thought the same right would extend to airplanes that were distressed and needed to land in an emergency. I cannot imagine it would not apply.

Mr. Epp: This issue came up at a time specifically when the minister responsible for national parks proposed to close these airports permanently. I had a number of presentations that this ought not to be done.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): That file will then be closed. Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2006-95 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

(For text of document, see Appendix V, p. 15V:1)

Ms. Armstrong: Section 11 of the Canadian Passport Order requires a person to return a passport without delay if required to do so by Transport Canada. Counsel pointed out that section 11 is without sanction, and that Passport Canada currently has no power to revoke a passport for failure to return it on request.

The department's response recognizes this situation. It indicated that counsel's suggestions would be taken into consideration for further amendments to the Canadian Passport Order. In this case, the file may simply be closed.

Senator Harb: I am not sure. Frankly, reading the response they provided in an earlier correspondence around the same time, together with this one, led me to believe they only wanted to brush us off.

I do not think they are saying either way. They are saying okay, thank you, we will look into it. I think we should send them a letter to ask explicitly whether they will take action on the suggestion of the committee, because I think it is a valid one. If they tell somebody to bring back their passport and they do not, what does the department do?

Mr. Bernhardt: In a sense, it was not so much a suggestion from counsel. We said, this seems to be the case and do you agree that is the case? They have written back and said yes, it is, and we will look into whether we think that is good or not.

At the end of the day, it is the government's business if it is happy with that situation. There is no requirement, from a legal point of view, that they include something like that in there. We only found it odd that it was not there and we wanted to ask if they had the same reading we did. It seems they do.

If they consider that a problem, I presume they will fix it. If they do not, I guess it falls to the committee to decide whether it is within the committee's mandate to insist on it.

Senator Harb: I agree: I will take my point back. We will close it.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I understand that part but we are talking about a request to return a passport which, presumably, is for good reason. If the party refuses to return it, the question is whether it can be revoked, and would be on the system as revoked. This issue is serious, is it not?

Ms. Armstrong: In the order, there is another power to revoke a passport on more general grounds — not specifically for failing to return it when requested. If somebody failed to return it when requested, if it was considered to be a problem, a danger or a threat to security, there is a general power to revoke a passport.

Mr. Bernhardt: It would not be simply by virtue of the fact they had not returned it. The department would have to say that because they did not return it, it presents a public danger.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): It is a chicken and egg situation, is it not? What happened first, the revocation or the failure to return it?

Mr. Bernhardt: It would be a simple thing to stick it in there and the department would not need to worry about the issue. It is a question of whether the committee feels it wants to go back.

Senator Harb: I go along with the recommendation of counsel. It is obvious they are aware of it. They can, at any point in time, enact other sections of the act.

For our purposes — whether or not the regulation deals with the intent of Parliament — it does. I agree that we should close it.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): We have been advised there are other general provisions for the revocation. The issue here also includes the returning of the passport. Why is it necessary to return it? Is there a valid reason that must be supported and enforced? That may not be in the general revocation provision, but it is in this one.

If you do not want a document circulating about, being used for purposes for which it is no longer valid, and people decide they will not return it, revocation does not solve the problem. There is a risk issue and a public safety issue.

Mr. Bernhardt: They say they will consider it for future amendments. We can write back and ask if they plan any amendments at this time and if they have considered it, at least as a matter of carrying it on.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): In reflecting on the comments, when you say ``passports'' anywhere in Parliament, everybody's ears go up because it is a highly important issue. I suspect that the revocation is covered and it can always be revoked. It will be on the system as an invalid passport but the physical presence will be still in the hands of the person who had it revoked.

Mr. Maloney: Is it beyond the jurisdiction of the committee to alert the minister's office to this anomaly? It does not make sense that the department can revoke it and not have a sanction in place for returning it. The issue flies in the face of common sense.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Let us have a dialogue with the department to determine whether the committee could do something in this regard.

Mr. Bernhardt: Departmental officials might provide a fuller explanation of the issue. Senator Harb is right in saying that one certainly has the impression that they are content with the status quo, and there might be a good explanation as to why that is.

Senator Harb: I am not trying to defend the department but situations occur whereby when the passport is revoked, the person is asked to return it but has already dropped it in the water. Therefore, the passport is gone. Perhaps that influences the stance of the department on the matter.

Mr. Norlock: When someone has their driver's licence revoked, they must return it to the authority. If the person does not comply, are the police sent to the person's home to search and seize? That is not usually done. When the item comes into the hands of the authority, the authority refuses to give it back because the person does not have the right to possess it. I suspect the department takes the same approach in the matter of revoked passports and the approach should be documented in some form.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): A passport is a special document that can be utilized for other purposes.

Mr. Norlock: A driver's licence can be utilized for other purposes as well.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): A letter to inquire would indicate the interest of the committee as to whether an issue is to be addressed for broader reasons than the department has considered.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-620 — CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE REGULATIONS

SOR/96-108 — CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

Ms. Armstrong: A number of amendments to the regulations and to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act were promised to address concerns raised by the committee in September 2001. Amendments to the regulations were delayed by the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness so that it could proceed with a complete and comprehensive legislative package, including proposed amendments to the CCRA. The department advised in September 2006 that amendments to the act are still being developed and that the committee's comments, where they remain relevant, will form an important part of the process. If the committee agrees, counsel will write to the department to ask for a report on the current status of these amendments.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-273 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PARI-MUTUEL BETTING SUPERVISION REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix W, p. 15W:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: This instrument made two amendments that the committee asked for, including the removal of an illegal provision. A question was raised concerning the term ``meilleur intérêt'' and whether the word ``intérêt'' alone would not be a better equivalent of the English ``best interest.'' The reply from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada indicates that it probably would be better but that the Criminal Code, under which the amendment concerned was adopted, is inconsistent in this regard as is other federal legislation generally. This being the case and because the meaning seems clear, it was determined unnecessary to make an amendment. I suppose one could argue that if there is a preferable formulation, its use could be encouraged. Given the lack of uniformity throughout federal legislation, the reply could be deemed satisfactory. If that is so, the file will be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-272 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (MOTORCYCLES AND THREE-WHEELED VEHICLES) AND THE MOTOR VEHICLE TIRE SAFETY REGULATIONS, 1995

(For text of document, see Appendix X, p. 15X:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Two points of drafting were raised in connection with this instrument. Corrections have been promised to deal with both of them in the next round of amendments, and progress will be followed up by counsel.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/99-459 — RULES REPEALING THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS RULES

SOR/99-460 — INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix Y, p. 15Y:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: I note a typographical error in the English version of the agenda: SOR/99-460 should read ``industrial design regulations'' not ``rules.'' This is of some relevance because SOR/99-459 revokes the industrial designs rules, which were made by the minister of industry. They have been replaced by the industrial design regulations made by the Governor-in-Council, SOR/99-460.

This replacement resolves eight matters raised in connection with the earlier rules. In 1993, the amendments to the Industrial Design Act conferred regulation-making powers on the Governor-in-Council. These powers were in addition to regulation-making powers given to the minister that were already in the act. This situation led to some concern as to whether particular provisions in the rules had been enacted by the proper person. This matter aside, the scope of the new powers given to the Governor-in-Council was so broad that it seemed doubtful there was anything left for the minister to regulate under the old powers. In the end, it was determined that the simplest action would be to revoke the rules made by the minister and replace them entirely with the regulations made by the Governor-in-Council. Of course, this action has been taken and is what we see this morning.

The department also agreed to examine the question of whether the minister's regulation-making power still in the act could be deleted because it was eventually concluded that it no longer served any purpose. The provision, section 19, was revoked, which puts an end to these matters.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Cannan: Legally, is there a difference between rule and regulation?

Mr. Bernhardt: No, they are pretty much synonymous. I suppose because it came from the minister, they decided to use the word ``rules,'' and when coming from the Governor-in-Council, they thought that the word ``regulation'' was more apt.

SOR/2007-68 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PASSPORT SERVICES FEES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix Z, p. 15Z:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: This instrument addresses two drafting points raised by the committee.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2006-101 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AGENCY OF CANADA THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SENIOR ADVISOR RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVERSITY AND SPECIAL PROJECTS

SI/2006-135 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF ABORIGINAL BUSINESS CANADA AND FIRST NATIONS SCHOOLNET AND TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY TO THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE NATIONAL ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD

SI/2006-144 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE INTERNAL INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF CANADIAN OFFICIALS IN RELATION TO ABDULLAH ALMALKI, AHMAD ABOU-EMAATI AND MUAYYED NUREDDIN AS A DEPARTMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT AND THE PRIME MINISTER AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER

SI/2007-9 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO REPRESENT HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF CANADA FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2007-10 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR MATTERS RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION INITIATIVE

SI/2007-11 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE TREASURY BOARD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION INITIATIVE SECRETARIAT

SI/2007-12 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD TO THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

SI/2007-13 — SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS CHARGE ON DUTY DEPOSIT REFUNDS REMISSION ORDER, NO. 1

SI/2007-14 — SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS CHARGE ON DUTY DEPOSIT REFUNDS REMISSION ORDER, NO. 2

SI/2007-15 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-16 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF NON-CIRCULATION COINS OF THE DENOMINATION OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS

SI/2007-17 — ORDER FIXING FEBRUARY 10, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-19 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-20 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-21 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACTS

SI/2007-28 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-29 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-30 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 27, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-32 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 31, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF PART VIII OF THE ACT

SI/2007-33 — MURRAY CHALMERS REMISSION ORDER

SI/2007-38 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF SECTIONS 172.01 OF THE ACT

SI/2007-39 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2007-43 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 15, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SOR/93-448 — ORDER RESCINDING NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY ORDER NO. 1990-R- 616

SOR/98-582 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernhardt: I note for the record that under the heading Statutory Instruments Without Comment, 25 instruments have been reviewed and found to comply with all the committee's criteria.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Colleagues, assuming that the House continues to sit through its regular schedule, the next meeting of the joint committee will be June 14.

If members have any matters that they want to bring to the attention of counsel or to assist members in the work of the committee, it might be a good time to make the request. Perhaps these matters could be raised at the next meeting as well. Hearing none, the committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned.

---