---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 4 - Evidence of October 19, 2006

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, October 19, 2006

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

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

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome Mr. John Maloney, who has just been appointed to the committee.

I would ask general counsel, Mr. Bernhardt, for brief opening comments on the Special Agenda Item.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: Mr. Chairman, at its June 16 meeting, the committee dealt with the failure to table the instrument registered as SOR/2005-328 in both Houses within seven sitting days after it was made, as required by the Canada Transportation Act. While noting that tabling had by then taken place, albeit belatedly, it was felt there could be value in reporting on the issue of tabling in relation to delegated legislation generally, even if only to indicate to departments that perhaps more attention should be paid to these kinds of requirements. A draft of that report is before members of the joint committee this morning.

Mr. Epp: I would recommend that, when the chairman of the joint committee presents the report in the House of Commons, he would take the occasion to provide a short précis of the substance of the report, because of its special meaning.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I would agree that the committee should look for every opportunity to raise its profile and to emphasize the importance of some of these issues. Are there further interventions?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): A good point has been made, and I would undertake the same task in the Senate.

Mr. Lee: I would hope that the joint chairman will connect the dots for the House when the remarks are made because a failure to table in the manner prescribed in every case will almost certainly constitute a prima facie matter of privilege in each House. The only consequence of that breach could be contempt. The series of incidents that the flashbacks in the report come from resulted in such a finding of contempt involving the then Minister of Finance. That is my recollection. The report is fully accurate and I support it 100 per cent, but it does not emphasize the consequence of failure. Perhaps counsel could suggest a way for the committee to be more aggressive on this point than it would ordinarily be in the writing of the report.

Mr. Bernhardt: We have tried to do so in the final paragraph, on page 3, where there is a quote —

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): I would pick up on the sentiment. Perhaps you have captured the beginning of the idea. It strikes me that a great deal of good and careful work is done in this committee but that, given the number of files reviewed and the depth of the process to scrutinize regulations, the committee does not receive very much attention or respect. Some files go back a very long time and contain a great deal of correspondence between departments and the joint committee. We need to develop a means of gaining more attention and respect for the work done by the committee, whereby hopefully replies from departments to the committee's counsel would become timelier. I think it wrong that government can take six months to one year to respond to the committee when it makes good strong points in respect of regulations that are wrong or wrongly imposed.

I agree with Mr. Lee's suggestion that the wording in the report be more aggressive. In respect of a remedy, I am not sure what the options are. I should like to table a general point for consideration: How can this committee receive more attention and respect in terms of its decision making and the way in which it is dealt with by the bureaucracy?

Mr. Lee: Perhaps I should take note that I am in opposition again, which is where I sat in 1993 when this issue last arose. It would not take much to cause me to go to the House in a contempt scenario. If counsel has some conspicuous cases, I would be happy to raise them in the House. We would be only 24 hours away from that particular scenario. In terms of the House finding contempt, that is about as high as we can go on the Richter scale.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): I was looking for something a little less aggressive.

Mr. Lee: This is not a disallowance; it is a matter of pulling the string tightly when we need to. I know that I would get the attention we want if I made such remarks. The bureaucrats would be running around trying to relieve the minister of some of the embarrassment. Although it would work, we would not want to do it frequently.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Senator Eyton raised a point with me before the meeting — specifically, whether the consequences would be appropriate — a deterrent — or whether the record would simply show that the Finance Minister, or whoever, was found in contempt of Parliament for not filing some documents. What would the real consequence be? Senator Eyton, you might characterize being in contempt of Parliament as the nuclear weapon, but, with regard to the finance matter, it did not go any further, as I understand. It was simply noted that the minister was in contempt, which is akin to a slap on the wrist.

Mr. Lee: I recall that, 13 years ago, I was uncomfortable, even though I was in opposition, having the House directly, conspicuously and advertently find the Minister of Finance, who was sitting there, in contempt. It is on the public record and it does not look good. Despite the bureaucrats trying to mitigate the embarrassment, when this happens, there is nothing between the minister and the Speaker. He or she is a sitting duck for a contempt finding. I do not want to have to do it, but if counsel has an egregious case and one of the ministries has lost its focus, then I would be happy to do the same thing again. I guarantee it will work.

Mr. Dewar: On page 3 of the report, the last two paragraphs caught my eye. Could a coordinated approach be taken by the joint committee regardless of political stripe to bring attention to this and support the chair when the report is presented in the House? As a functioning body, the committee needs to ensure that there is follow through, but perhaps there is a way to do that before we get to the stage that Mr. Lee is talking about. Perhaps we could develop some prescriptive ideas in this committee to underline and present to both Houses, so it is not seen as a one-off. It would certainly show that the joint committee stands together. However, being new to the committee, I need to know how that could be done and what we would be asking for. Certainly, each department is different.

Is there a mechanism that we can prescribe generally for this issue within the whole of government or do we suggest to certain departments that they need to pay more attention to due diligence? As a coordinated body, the joint committee could come forward and support the chair when he presents his report in the House and truly drive home the message while keeping our collective eye on the ball.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I would suggest for consideration that general counsel draft an appropriate statement that will be identical into the records of both Houses when this report is tabled. In that way, we would have the essence of the input of members of the joint committee. Unless there is dissension, this is moved by Mr. Lee, seconded by Senator Moore. Are there comments?

Mr. Maloney: I agree with your comments, Mr. Chair. These infractions have gone on for years — if not decades, in some cases — and it is a huge embarrassment that no one takes any heed of us.

I appreciate that going through the proper process from a parliamentary perspective is essential, but it has to be a practical approach, too. Perhaps you, as chairs, should be writing to the deputy ministers, because that is where the responsibility really lies — the poor minister has no idea and it may be two, three, four, five or a dozen ministers back when these things came on. We should read the riot act to the deputy ministers and then give them fair notice when we start to deal with an issue that we will bring down the nuclear attack if they do not respond within 30 days or whatever.

You have to do a little arm-twisting or they will ignore you again.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I think there is a consensus on that sentiment. Maybe we can deal with this in two parts. First, with regard to the report, we have a motion that the report be adopted and tabled in both Houses with an appropriate and identical commentary by the joint chairmen.

Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): The second item, which Mr. Lee alluded to in a broader sense, along with the senator and Mr. Maloney, is our concern about how these things seem to drag on forever. I think there needs to be a little more thought on this. It is something we probably could do if we called the steering committee to kick it around, but because there are so many new members that need the help of the experienced members, my preference would be to set aside a little time in our next meeting to talk more specifically about how this committee would assert itself.

We could discuss whether to set some new rules with regard to a timely response, with regard to consequences, with regard to the point at which we trigger reading the so-called riot act. It is not something we have to do today, but I think we should have it in mind and be prepared to see if we can come to a consensus at our next meeting as to how we start to slowly shift the way we have always done it.

Is that acceptable to the committee?

Senator Bryden: Having been here not as long as Mr. Lee but for some period of time, we could almost put a disk on and play this conversation from five years ago. This is a committee that often has to get its results by keeping constant pressure, somewhat at an elevating level, on the departments until we get them to take notice. If we simply tell every deputy minister to shape up or we will ship you out, I believe they will laugh. Each incident has to be treated as a single item.

Just to start from scratch, as all of you people in the House of Commons must know, to get from a decision that you are going to make a regulation to the actual regulation coming into force is often a matter of years — with people taking the very best and shortest route that they can take in order to get it there — because of all the checks and balances that it goes through. It has to go to the Department of Justice, then it goes back to the department and then it has to go back. When it gets to us and we say that having done all that you still screwed it up, then it has to go back through that same system in many instances.

We need to be circumspect that the areas that we put extraordinary emphasis on are targeted and that it is not a case of yelling wolf every time a letter is two months late. In doing that, it just becomes routine.

I think here, as Mr. Lee was saying, I do not know if you can redraft that second last paragraph — this has already been adopted — but actually use the word "contempt" in there. While it does not sound like very much, no minister wants to be called in contempt of Parliament — especially with the cameras there — two or three times in the same session. The pressure will have to come actually from the boss of the deputies.

I agree it is frustrating. Senator Eyton and I came out of the private sector. We know what we would do with some of those folks if they did not answer, but it does not really work that way. So much of it is persuasion and trying to target the ones that are essential and get them to move.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): That is precisely why we need the mix of new and experienced members — to provide that perspective. As members give some consideration to this and we speak to it to see if there is a consensus among the group as to how we might approach these things — we have a frame of reference that I think has been very helpful.

Is it agreed that we should put that on our agenda?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 4A:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, the committee had questioned the efficacy of requiring a proclamation to give notice of the date of coming into force of a tax agreement, if the proclamation giving that notice is published more than six months after the date of the coming into force of the convention.

It should be said that the legality of the procedure that was followed was never in question. Nevertheless, one could wonder why the department needed so much time, as a practical matter, to go through the procedure with the result that interested parties were officially notified of the coming into force of a tax agreement that may affect their affairs six months after the effective date of that agreement.

The relevant chronology is set out on page 2 of the June 5 letter to the minister.

It goes without saying that this committee does not deal with administration, but rather with statutory instruments. At the same time, members were concerned that it seemed that civil servants did not attach much importance to these procedures. In view of this, it was decided to send a letter to the minister, registering concern and asking that he examine departmental procedures for the handling of these tax conventions, and then leave it at that.

In his reply, the minister does not really deal with the crux of the matter. Instead, he emphasizes that the letter of the law was followed, and he details the steps taken by the Australian authorities. No mention is made of the time between December 18, 2002, when Australia notified Canada that it completed its approval process, and June 22, 2003, when notice of the coming into force was published in the Canada Gazette.

He concludes by remarking that there is an element of judgment in deciding whether the spirit of the law is complied with, and that reasonable people may disagree. Be that as it may, I think the point has been made. Unless the committee feels otherwise, this is a case where the file could be closed.

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

It is the recommendation of counsel, based on the response and the summary provided to us, that we could consider the matter closed. Is that the will of the committee?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Mr. Lee has some thoughts about this. We will let that intervention happen.

Mr. Lee: The reason we are looking at this more closely is that the timing of the publication lags so far behind the actual implementation date that the publication becomes useless. I think the committee should firm up and agree with that — that a publication requirement should be timely. In this particular case, I believe there was a six-month lag, roughly, unaccounted for.

I think we should go back and say that a six-month lag, without any apparent reason, is unacceptable in the view of the committee and that the committee will be monitoring the timing of future publication in these tax conventions, to ensure that our views are taken into account.

It may be a small point, because the tax department will argue that for all the tax professionals they are doing emails, e-publications, the tax bulletin, the interpretation bulletins, all this stuff that is going out — except they forgot about what Parliament wants them to do, which is to publish it in the Canada Gazette, as well. Hopefully, no one is prejudiced by that six-month lag time, but I think we should insist the publication be timely. That must have been Parliament's intent and we should enforce it.

Mr. Epp: I think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to take into account the fact that, in this particular instance, the coming into force of the thing was also dependent on actions taken by a foreign government. Until that was done, strictly speaking, the deal was not complete.

When I read the letter from the Minister of Finance, the argument they make is rather cogent, in my view. On the other hand, I believe we entered into this protocol for the benefit of Canadian citizens, to relieve them of double taxation, if I understand the issue properly. I do not know whether the Canada Gazette permits announcing something like this before the deal is actually completed so that the tax people in this country can work to the benefit of our own citizens.

We just closed this file, but we should keep an eye on this type of thing in the future.

I would like to have us inquire, if at all possible, whether there is some mechanism whereby we can practically begin the implementation of such a law passed by our Parliament if it is not yet given Royal Assent by, in this case, the Australian Parliament. Does Mr. Bernhardt have a response to that?

Mr. Bernhardt: There is a mechanism set out in the statute whereby there is an exchange of notices — in other words, when one country goes through its procedures, it notifies the other country. That is what happened in this case. Once Canada was notified by Australia that its procedures were completed, the coming into force date was automatically triggered. At that point, the coming into force date was set.

That date, as Mr. Lee indicated, was publicized through various other means — posted on the website, press releases, so on and so forth. The act also requires that it be published in the Canada Gazette. There is no time frame set out in the Canada Gazette. It does not say within 30 days or 60 days; it just says you have to publish a notice.

In the department's view, and as the minister noted, they went above and beyond what they were required to do. Not only did they publish the notice, they posted it on their website and issued press releases.

As I say, counsel's recommendation was based on the discussion when this was last before the committee, which was simply that we write to the minister and then close the file because, in a sense, this falls very much at the borders of the committee's mandate. If members wish to revisit that and pursue it further, that is entirely up to the committee.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I think we are at the point, with regard to the specific issue, that nothing more is going to come of this and that we will consider the file closed. However, there is the experience of this. I do have a question.

We have taken a decision to close the file. In the absence of anyone announcing that to anybody else, we may become part of the problem as well by not closing their file. I raise it from the standpoint that the committee has considered the response of the minister and, at this point, is prepared to close the file — but to reiterate the point made in our letter initially and that we intend to monitor it. That is important.

Mr. Bernhardt: We can certainly write back again, thank the minister and indicate the committee remains concerned.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): This is a matter that perhaps we can discuss as part of our agenda item in a subsequent meeting, about how we can start to build up this reinforcement that we must cooperate a bit more and start to accelerate the velocity of the transmission of documentation. People will understand that we assume that they are operating in good faith and we want to ensure them that we are also operating in good faith.

Maybe we can write that one last letter, advising them what we have done, and close the file, but reiterate the reason we raised this in the first instance, which is in the last paragraph of our letter.

Is that agreeable to the committee?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): This was an occasion where we received a full reply within a couple of months of writing a letter. In our terms, at least, it was a timely reply. There should be some recognition of that.

SOR/97-144 — BROADCASTING LICENCE FEE REGULATIONS, 1997

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 4B:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, at its last meeting, the committee adopted the second report, report number 76, which draws the attention of the Houses to the developments that have taken place in connection with the court challenge to the Part II licence fees imposed by these regulations. At the same time, it was the wish of members that counsel prepare a briefing note for the committee concerning the issue of fees versus taxes in the context of the broadcasting licence fees.

As a final paragraph of the note indicates, one new development since the last meeting is that November 20 has now been set as the date for the commencement of the trial in the main action.

In view of the fact that this date is fast approaching, it falls to the committee now to decide whether it wishes to await the decision of the trial court for the time being or it wishes to pursue the matter in a more immediate fashion — and, if so, what action should be taken.

Mr. Del Mastro: In advance of November 20, I think it would be imprudent of the committee to render any decision on this. There was general acknowledgment among the committee when this was last raised that this probably does constitute a tax, but we are likely best to leave this to the hearing on November 20. That is my personal opinion.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): I think our discussion the last time we dealt with this was that we were going to monitor the proceedings in the courts, in that the fact that someone had actually filed a proceeding in the court had pre-empted us from moving too far forward.

Under the circumstances, if it is agreed, I think we should continue to monitor the court proceedings and deal with this when we get an opinion from the courts. Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2003-71 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENT REGULATIONS, 1999

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 4C:1)

Mr. Jacques Rousseau, Counsel: Mr. Chairman, committee counsel drew the department's attention to a drafting error in the French version of the regulations. No response was sought from the department. Furthermore, since these regulations are slated to be repealed once the legislation is amended, no further action is required on the committee's part and the file can be considered closed.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there questions or comments? Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2005-288 — SPECIAL APPOINTMENT REGULATIONS, No. 2005-11

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 4D:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Regarding this file, the Public Service Commission has confirmed that steps were taken to correct the drafting error and to prevent a recurrence of the problem. If the committee is satisfied with this outcome, the file can be considered closed.

[English]

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

Mr. Lee: This is from the Public Service Commission. The earlier letters were fairly pro forma, but why is it that the Public Service Commission would rely on the regulation and publication section at PCO to do their editing? The department should take responsibility for the quality of its work, it seems to me.

The president of the Public Service Commission has said that she has spoken to the Privy Council Office about the lack of quality in this material, as if it were the responsibility of the Privy Council Office. I would have thought that the original drafting would have been the responsibility of the department. This simply does not look right. Could counsel comment on that procedurally?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is a very good point, Mr. Lee. I do not have an answer to that, but I suspect that, because of the nature of these special appointment regulations, they use a kind a boilerplate form and simply punch the names and dates into a template. Somewhere along the way, that phrase was dropped from one version. It might be that this template was created there and so the Public Service Commission uses it.

Mr. Lee: That is fine but they were advised by the joint committee that they have a problem and yet they allowed it to happen again, after which they wrote the joint committee a letter to say that they wrote to somebody else.

I would suggest that the committee, without prolonging this, write back to say that the committee expects the department to take responsibility for its own work, not to blame errors on someone else, and that the high standards expected throughout government should be present in the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Bernhardt: They use a regular format, 15 to 20 of which are produced each year. We had two examples of this — and this one was 2005. We are probably up to another 10 or 12 this year. As far as I know, it has not repeated itself. It would seem that they have fixed the problem. If it happens a third time, then the three-strikes rule could be applied. For now, it would seem that they have sorted it out, for what that is worth.

Mr. Lee: I will stand down.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are members agreed with counsel's recommendation that the file be closed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/99-324 — BOOK IMPORTATION REGULATIONS

SOR/99-325 — EXCEPTION FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES AND MUSEUMS REGULATION

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 4E:1)

Mr. Rousseau: These two files have been grouped together because the department sent out identical letters in both cases on July 21 and July 24, 2006. The department's response is unsatisfactory in both instances.

Regarding SOR/99-324, amendments were promised to the wording of the regulations. In August 2000, the department promised to make the necessary amendments the next time changes were considered. In November 2000, committee counsel wrote to the department to advise it that the committee was amenable to its proposal, provided the changes were made within a reasonable period of time. More than six years have passed since the department first promised to make these amendments.

Regarding SOR/99-325, an amendment to section 6(1) of the regulations promised in May 2003 has yet to be made. As can be seen from the letter of June 23, 2006 sent by committee counsel, the two other problems concern, firstly, the repeal of section 5 of the regulations which no longer serves any purpose, further to a legislative amendment in 2004, and second, the validity of section 7 of the regulations.

As I mentioned, the department supplied the identical response with regard to both files. The department specifically stated the following:

You may therefore appreciate that changes purely for the purpose of correcting technical or grammatical flaws are generally only carried out when there is a significant risk that an interested party would otherwise be unduly and significantly prejudiced by, for example, some ambiguity in the wording. We do not believe that such prejudice would arise in the present instance. Nonetheless, we will keep your recommendations in mind when we contemplate substantive changes to this regulation.

This response is clearly unsatisfactory in so far as the second file is concerned, where counsel is challenging the validity of one of the regulations' provisions. The department did not even bother to respond to this concern. The response is no more satisfactory in the case of the first file. On the issue in question, namely the wording of some of the provisions, the committee went along with the department's proposal provided that the promised corrections were made within a reasonable time frame. Six years is more than reasonable.

If the committee has no objections, counsel recommends that the chairman write to the minister to obtain some answers and to request timely action on the promised amendments.

[English]

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

Mr. Del Mastro: The response from the department indicates that they do not want to make the changes because it might be difficult. That is not a good criterion for determining whether government should take action on an item. This file has been ongoing for a very long time and I would concur with counsel that this should be pursued.

Mr. Lee: I was disappointed in the pro forma nature of each of the responses on July 21 and July 24 because they are virtually the same form letter that they send in response to anyone who writes to the department on a particular issue. They say that they recognize the importance of communicating and dealing with the rest of the world in both official languages.

I was really disappointed. Given the benefit of the doubt — and I will assume the department is going through some kind of a transition we are not familiar with — in my view, the clock has run and we are actually out of time.

The letter that is being written should reflect the view of the committee, if the committee's will is there, that we are now insisting that the changes be made now — no more wait time. It has been five years, right? We have enjoyed waiting, but we cannot do it anymore so let us get the changes made.

There is no sense in being snarky about the attitude of the letters. They are inadequate — that is one adjective I could use.

The third point, on the substantive issue involving the stamping of those documents, I had occasion to go back and look at that. I am not sure I agree fully with counsel on his take on that stamping. Could we discuss that now?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Carry on.

Mr. Lee: It is a substantive piece. When a photocopy is made for a particular purpose identified under the statute, the regulations say that, when that copy is made, it gets marked or stamped with something that says the copy can only be used for the purpose referred to in the statute. It struck me that the stamping and the wording are only hearsay of what has already happened in the making of the photocopy.

Counsel is suggesting that the screening and imposition of the statutory condition is happening only when the stamping is put on the document following the making of the copy. However, I am suggesting that it may well be that the compliance with the statutory condition and all that is necessary has already happened when the photocopy is made. The application of the stamp to the document is there only to reinforce the statutory condition in the hands of the user.

It is similar, if I can draw an analogy, to using a postage stamp. The postage stamp is sort of hearsay of the fact that the postage has been paid. The postage may have been paid for that stamp a month or a week ago, but you put the stamp on the envelope afterwards and it says this has been paid. Similarly, the stamping on the photocopied document is almost like recognition that the statutory requirements are noted and the photocopy can be used.

Counsel may differ with me on that; but I was looking for a way to allow the procedures that have been adopted to be in compliance with the law. I think counsel's reading of the facts here might be a little bit too strict and may not pay sufficient attention to the screening that would occur just before the photocopy is made or when the photocopy is being requested.

Mr. Bernhardt: If there were some indication in the regulations that something had to be done before the copy was made, I would agree with Mr. Lee completely. The problem we have always had here is that there is nothing required to take place before the copying. In a sense, there is no requirement to purchase a stamp, to use that analogy. We simply have the postmark.

If there were some requirement that the institution inform the person requesting the copy that he could only use it for certain purposes, and then made the copy and stamped it, and we said the stamp is verification that person was told, I do not think there would be any problem. In that sense, everything that is required to be done now is ex post facto.

What we are saying is that we put the stamp on there, which shows that somehow we are satisfied, but you are not required to do anything to satisfy yourself except to put the stamp on. I think that is where the difficulty arose, in effect. It was really just a timing problem.

If there is something to be done to satisfy yourself that, if you make a copy, the person you give the copy to is only going to use it in a certain way, then surely something must be done before you make the copy. Otherwise, the copying is a breach of copyright. Once you put the stamp on, you have already breached the copyright.

It would be different if the stamp were a confirmation that something had taken place before. The problem is that the regulations do not tell us what that something should be — whether it should be a verbal warning to the person or a form letter that says we are putting a stamp on this and this is what the stamp means. Then it would be fine.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): That is all that would be required here to satisfy it.

Mr. Lee: This is public record. Maybe people over at the department will read it. If you were to ask them later what procedures there are for a party that requests these photocopies, if they said our copier people are instructed to advise the requester that we can only make photocopies if they are for these statutory purposes, if they were to reply that, it would be kind of a convention or a custom that evolved around the photocopy machine or the kiosk.

Mr. Bernhardt: Put that in the regulation.

Mr. Lee: Okay. However, if it existed verbally, would that suffice, and would the absence from the actual regulations detract from its legal validity?

Mr. Bernhardt: There would have to be something in the regulations indicating that something was required to be done before the copying — whether verbal or on paper, or perhaps just a sign posted at the front desk of the library or taped to the photocopier would suffice. It has always been our view that there must be some mechanism there before the copy is made, something to nail the hat to, as it were.

Senator Moore: I would be in agreement with the letter suggested by Mr. Lee, but I would also like to see that we get a response back within 30 days, failing which the minister will be required to come before the committee.

Only when we have the minister or deputy minister attend before the committee will we get the recognition and the response I think we are all seeking.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): Are we agreed?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I have a bit of a problem here with respect to what we are actually asking for. Are we basically saying to them that the regulations should state that, when you make a copy, you immediately stamp it with this information?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is what the regulation says now. After you make the copy, before you give it to the person, you are required to put a stamp on it that says we are satisfied this is only going to be used for purposes of research and study.

Mr. Epp: What is the problem?

Mr. Bernhardt: What contravenes the copyright is making the copy. How can you decide that making the copy will not contravene the copyright if you only do the thing to confirm that after the copy has already been made? It puts the cart before the horse.

Mr. Epp: You are saying that the regulation should say that there should be an agreement reached that this is the purpose of the copy, the stamp being put on afterwards — is that right? That does not seem like a difficult thing to accomplish.

Mr. Bernhardt: No. As I say, in this case, it may be as simple as taping a note on the photocopier or putting a notice at the front desk of the library or institution. It is not a matter of moving heaven and earth, I do not think.

In connection with this, I would point out that we are writing to the minister and, in the case of section 7 of the regulations, we have yet to get a reply on the legal argument pursued here. To expect a reply within 30 days, I was just suggesting to the chairman it is probably going to take 30 days for that letter to filter down from the minister's office to the lawyer who will actually be given it to deal with. Then it will probably take another 30 days to work its way back up to the minister's office.

Senator Moore: Is 60 days the practical number?

Mr. Bernhardt: I would say, at a bare minimum.

Senator Moore: Given that we are nearing the end of October, when might the committee receive a response? Could we request a response by December 10?

Mr. Bernhardt: We could bring the file back in the New Year. If there has been no reply, then the committee could follow up on it then. Alternately, if we have received a reply by that time, we will have it for the committee. Our standard bring-forward on that file would be February 2007, which is probably about the time the committee will return after the Christmas recess to commence meetings again. We could bring it to committee at that time regardless.

Senator Moore: Does counsel not think that we could reasonably expect a reply before this calendar year is out?

Mr. Bernhardt: I would say no. When the committee asks only for a progress report on something that has been promised, a reply can be turned around quickly. However, when the committee is asking for an opinion or response to a substantive point of law through the minister's office, the turnaround time is usually extended considerably.

Senator Moore: That makes me think that we are starting at square one again, when everyone knows the substance of the issue, the law and what has to be done. Is it necessary to begin a new file each time there is a change in ministers?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): I agree with Senator Moore. This goes back to the first point that we talked about this morning — receiving more attention and having better response times. It seems that all letters sent by the committee should request that a response be sent at the earliest possible time and, where appropriate, add an outside date. I should like the committee's correspondence to bear a greater sense of urgency.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): They should keep the committee advised of the expected date of response, when they cannot meet our date, in order to keep the information flowing.

Mr. Del Mastro: I agree with counsel's suggestion, that we obtain a legal opinion. If they have not made the change because they deem it too difficult, that is not a good enough reason. I concur that a date of February 1, 2007, would give them a broad enough time window to reply to the committee. Also, it corresponds well with the timing of the committee reconvening after the Christmas recess. I would support such a motion. If the opinion from legal counsel suggests that nothing stands in the way of this being enacted and that nothing should transpire from that point, then I would support the senator's comment that someone should be brought forward to find out why this is not happening, but only after that time.

Mr. Bernhardt: We could include in the letter to the minister that the committee intends to have this file back before its first meeting in the new year.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): That is a fulsome discussion. It shows that the committee is attempting to create a more appropriate movement of documentation, being sensitive to the fact that every case has to be considered on its own merits. This one has been dragging on and it would be appropriate, if agreed by the committee, that the letter would reflect the concerns and requests of the committee to see this back by a certain date to allow the committee to continue its work on a timely basis. If the department deems this not possible, then it can advise the committee as to when it can expect a reply and the reason therefore for the delay. Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 4F:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, each of these instruments uses the terms "significant subsidiary" and "significant dependency." The department was asked as to the meaning of these terms and it was suggested that definitions should be included in the instruments. The Department of Finance replied that there is no need to define the terms because they are intended to be understood in their ordinary meaning. The committee did not find this helpful and a further explanation was sought as to precisely what it is that renders a significant subsidiary or dependency significant. Examples of dependencies and subsidiaries that would and would not be considered significant were also requested.

The cursory reply from the department is that something is significant if it is important. It is difficult to imagine how this would be thought to shed much light on the matter. As for examples, the committee is told that a subsidiary that provides important information, processing services or key intellectual property rights would be a significant subsidiary. Similarly, a significant dependency would exist where a bank or insurance company receives a large portion of funding from the other person, or outsources key business inputs from another person.

Now we know that "significant" means important, large or key. Presumably, the department and banks and insurance companies have a considerably more detailed understanding of these concepts. I would suggest that the department should be asked to provide a proper and complete explanation of the analysis it undertakes and the guidelines and criteria it applies to determine whether in a particular instance a subsidiary or dependency is significant.

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

Mr. Lee: I was not able to determine whether the concept of significant subsidiary was material to anything because the regulations were not there for me to read. I would not want to force the department to create a definition of something that might be regarded a virtual irrelevancy. I would like the concept that they are trying to define to be material in some way before we spend much time forcing them to define it.

Mr. Bernhardt: The issue occurs when banks or insurance companies are considered to have control of a subsidiary or conversely to be in a position of dependency on another person, which, of course, connects to related party transactions and the things that can or cannot be done between these two levels of subsidiaries and dependents. In that sense, the distinction is fundamental because it affects the restrictions on transactions that banks and insurance companies can enter into with related parties.

I would assume that there is a considerable body of administrative documentation as to what will or will not be considered important, significant or key, as they say. It would be open to them to give the committee a binder full of things.

Mr. Lee: Federal legislation is replete with precision in using definitions when you have control and when you have a subsidiary. The department would not have to look far to find such definitions. There are no illusions or soft spots in knowing whether you have a subsidiary or dependency. For example, a shell corporation might be fully controlled but it would not be deemed significant because it would have no assets other than the paper on the desk. If the department is trying to say that federal entities, corporate and otherwise, have lots of insignificant paper shell structures floating around for use whenever they need them, then I understand their comments.

If they are only looking at excluding from the process all of these shell and paper creations that are around, that is okay with me, because there is no point in defining what a virtual nothing is. That is why I asked if it were material. Perhaps, in further correspondence, counsel could focus on that.

Mr. Bernhardt: At this point, no suggestion has been made to the Department of Finance regarding an amendment, other than the suggestion that perhaps they could define these terms. Basically, what is being asked for at this point is information and explanation — and something a little more than "significant" means "important."

Mr. Del Mastro: Further to the point brought forward by Mr. Lee, I think that what we are asking for here is not that much. All we are asking for them to do is define it for us — what does this mean — and not to come back and say that it means "important." One would hope that they do not come back the next time and say that it means critical or crucial.

If that really is the measuring stick, I agree with what you are saying completely. It is easy to put that into a letter and say that we are not referring to shell corporations here, that we are talking about core dependencies. That is what we are really speaking about. That would be great; that is all we are looking for. It is not that much to ask and I think it is reasonable to expect a response to that.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): There are precedents within other professions — for instance, the accounting profession, where "significant influence" is actually a defined concept. Thirty per cent equity interest means you have to equity account as opposed to cost base. There are contexts in which that term means something.

It seems like a not very compelling reason that it is their ordinary usage. We have had some significant kicking around of this thing. It would be reflective of the committee's wish that we get back to them on this again to say this is unsatisfactory.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Eyton): The fact is that "significant" is a weasel word. The word is there so the bureaucrat can look at it and make a decision here or there, depending on the sentiment of the moment. It can be precisely defined in terms of the degree of dependency, the degree of ownership or the degree of control of other mechanisms. That is a weasel word.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): It is recommended that we get back to them on this to reflect the thoughts of the committee on it. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SPECIFICATIONS, SGM-1

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SPECIFICATIONS, SGM-3

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SPECIFICATIONS, SGM-7

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 4G:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, the next three items are weights and measures specifications about which counsel have some drafting concerns. In the case of the first two items listed, the department has advised us that some of the promised amendments should be adopted within one year, while others are being discussed.

Regarding the third file, the department says it expects new specifications to be adopted by the end of the fiscal year. If the committee is satisfied with these answers, counsel will continue to monitor progress in the usual manner and will keep the committee apprised of any future developments.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/88-230 — FRONTIER LANDS REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/88-263 — NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE AREA REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 4H:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, in both of these cases, drafting concerns were noted. In a letter dated April 6, 2006, the department advised that it would be publishing draft regulations further to the comments made in conjunction with the review of SOR/88-263. While preparing for this meeting, committee counsel realized that two separate sets of draft regulations were published on September 30, 2006.

With one exception, all of the promised corrections will be made once these two draft regulations are adopted. Committee counsel recommends writing back to the department to request an explanation as to why one of the promised corrections was not included in the draft regulations. At the same time, the committee could ask the department to clarify when exactly it expects to adopt these draft regulations.

[English]

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

No? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/99-190 — CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 4I:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, four concerns were identified by counsel in a letter dated January 19, 2000. The third concern noted was corrected with the adoption of SOR/2001-522, which also appears on the agenda under the heading "Action Taken."

The department confirmed in a letter dated February 16, 2006 that the promised corrections with respect to points 1 and 2 would be made the next time the regulations were amended. Regarding the fourth concern, the department provided a satisfactory response in its letter of January 10, 2003 with regard to the enabling authority to adopt sections 15 to 18 of the regulations. Counsel will monitor progress on the two promised amendments in the usual manner and will keep the committee apprised of developments.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Are there any comments or questions? Is it agreed that we will just be kept up to date as we move forward on this?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-312 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 4J:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, two questions were raised in connection with section 55.1 of these regulations. On the first point, subsection (1) of this section requires certain employers to provide, on a monthly basis, information in respect of their employees concerning the date of commencement, employment periods, amounts earned during employment and the reasons for separation from employment.

The reference to information concerning these things would seem to indicate that information other than simply those things themselves — that is, the dates and amounts — were required. The reply from the department, however, is that that is not the case.

The second point, subsection (2) of section 55.1, requires certain employees to comply with this provision. The regulatory impact analysis statement, however, indicates that these are voluntary programs. The department explained that what is intended is that an employer who voluntarily chooses to comply with the program is then required to comply with the regulations, which makes perfect sense. What we are dealing with here are two points of clarification.

At the conclusion of his letter, the deputy minister states that the text of the regulation will be reviewed with the aim of identifying how it could be improved. This seems a rather vague assurance. Perhaps, at this point, a letter should go to the department asking for confirmation that the amendments will be made, and asking for a time frame within which the committee can expect that will be done.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): It is recommended to send a letter; is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2003-60 — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES (AUTHORIZED FOREIGN BANKS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-61 — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES (BANKS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-64 — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES (COOPERATIVE CREDIT ASSOCIATIONS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-67 — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES (LIFE COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-68 — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES (PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-69 — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 4K:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, regarding the two points raised by committee counsel, the department responded in a manner that can be deemed satisfactory. Regarding the first comment, the department acknowledged that its purpose in repeating the references in the regulations was merely to inform the reader.

Regarding the second comment made, the department confirmed the meaning of the excerpt of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement quoted on pages 2 and 3 of counsel's letter forwarded on May 12, 2005. If the committee is satisfied with the department's response, no further action is necessary and these files can be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Is that acceptable to the committee? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

ORDER AMENDING THE FEES PROPOSED BY WESTERN CANADA MARINE RESPONSE CORPORATION, GREAT LAKES RESPONSE CORPORATION OF CANADA, EASTERN CANADA RESPONSE CORPORATION LTD., ATLANTIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (ALERT) INC., AND POINT TUPPER MARINE SERVICES LTD.

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 4L:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairman, the note members have before them this morning provides the background to this file. At issue are the procedure that was followed to enact this order and the possible retroactive application of fees charged by response organizations in respect of ships carrying oil in Canadian waters.

The note concludes with the suggestion that the response from the department to the concerns of the committee be accepted for now, subject to the caveat that the proper publication procedure should be followed in the event that new or amended fees are adopted.

If there is agreement with this, then the file would be closed.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2002-264 — SUPPORT ORDERS AND SUPPORT PROVISIONS (BANKS AND AUTHORIZED FOREIGN BANKS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-265 — SUPPORT ORDERS AND SUPPORT PROVISIONS (RETAIL ASSOCIATIONS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-266 — SUPPORT ORDERS AND SUPPORT PROVISIONS (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 4M:1)

SOR/2004-112 — GULLY MARINE PROTECTED AREA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 4N:1)

SOR/2005-249 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ONTARIO FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1989

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 4N:1)

SOR/2001-522 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 4P:1)

SOR/2005-174 — TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS (CUSTOMS TARIFF) 2005-1

SOR/2003-290 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2003-2

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 4Q:1)

SOR/2005-208 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ORDER (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 4R:1)

SOR/2005-292 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (2004 DROUGHT REGIONS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 4S:1)

SOR/2005-326 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 4T:1)

SOR/2005-343 — ORDER AMENDING PARTS I AND II OF SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS RPODUCTS (ICE HOCKEY HELMETS) REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2005-344 — REGULATIONS REPEALING THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (ICE HOCKEY HELMETS) REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 4U:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, for all of the items listed under the headings "Action Promised" and "Action Taken," with the committee's permission, I will proceed in the usual manner and group together the information for each category.

However, before I start, I would point out that a portion of the file on SOR/2004-112 has been assembled incorrectly. The first pages of this file have been attached to the three previous files.

Having said that, as members will have noted, despite this glitch, all of the files are complete.

Mr. Chairman, in the case of the five items listed under the heading "Action Promised," a total of ten amendments will be made. In the case of the eight items listed under the heading "Action Taken," 11 amendments were made at the committee's request.

In conclusion, committee members will please note that 68 items are presented without comment.

UNPUBLISHED — CONTAMINATED FISHERIES PROHIBITION ORDER NO. QTN-1993-058

UNPUBLISHED — CONTAMINATED FISHERIES PROHIBITION ORDER NO. QTN-1993-059

C.R.C.C.790 — SETTLERS' EFFECTS ACQUIRED WITH BLOCKED CURRENCIES REMISSION ORDER

SI/2005-73 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FUNCTIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT TO THE CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY OF THE NATIONAL COLLECTION SERVICES AND OF THE COLLECTIONS LITIGATION AND ADVISORY SERVICES

SI/2005-74 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2005-75 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2005-76 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2005-77 — ORDER AMENDING THE SETTLERS' EFFECTS ACQUIRED WITH BLOCKED CURRENCIES REMISSION ORDER

SI/2005-78 — ATA WOODWORKING INC. REMISSION ORDER

SI/2005-79 — KEITH KIRBY REMISSION ORDER

SI/2005-80 — JOSEPHINE PASTORIOUS REMISSION ORDER

SI/2005-81 — ORDER DECLINING TO SET ASIDE OR TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISIONS CRTC 2005-246 AND CRTC 2005-247

SI/2005-82 — ORDER DECLINING TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2005-248

SI/2005-83 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAMS SECTOR

SI/2005-89 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2005-90 — UNITED NATIONS STABILIZATION MISSION IN HAITI (MINUSTAH) MEDAL ORDER

SI/2005-91 — PROCLAMATION ANNOUNCING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL

SI/2005-92 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 3, 2005 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF PART XIII OF THE ACT

SI/2005-93 — MICHELINE MALENFANT AND ROCH MALENFANT REMISSION ORDER

SI/2005-94 — PASQUALE PENNETTA REMISSION ORDER

SI/2005-95 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 5, 2005 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SI/2005-96 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE TONY VALERI

SI/2005-97 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 5, 2005 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SI/2005-98 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE TONY IANNO AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE TONY IANNO TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

SI/2005-99 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 5, 2005 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SI/2005-100 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE CLAUDETTE BRADSHAW AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE CLAUDETTE BRADSHAW TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

SI/2005-101 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 5, 2005 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SI/2005-102 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JACQUES SAADA

SI/2005-103 — ORDER DECLINING TO SET ASIDE OR TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISIONS CRTC 2005-338 AND CRTC 2005-339

SOR/92-637 — EXPORT AND IMPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES REGULATIONS

SOR/2000-101 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER SECTIONS 89 AND 114 OF THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2002-300 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-99 — TAX COURT OF CANADA RULES OF PROCEDURE RESPECTING THE CUSTOMS ACT (INFORMAL PROCEDURE)

SOR/2004-100 — RULES AMENDING THE TAX COURT OF CANADA RULES (GENERAL PROCEDURE)

SOR/2004-101 — RULES AMENDING THE TAX COURT OF CANADA RULES (INFORMAL PROCEDURE)

SOR/2004-102 — TAX COURT OF CANADA RULES OF PROCEDURE RESPECTING THE EXCISE ACT, 2001 (INFORMATION PROCEDURE)

SOR/2004-103 — RULES AMENDING THE TAX COURT OF CANADA RULES OF PROCEDURE RESPECTING THE EXCISE TAX ACT (INFORMAL PROCEDURE)

SOR/2004-104 — RULES AMENDING THE TAX COURT OF CANADA RULES OF PROCEDURE RESPECTING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

SOR/2004-116 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 4 TO THE CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT

SOR/2004-132 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONTROLLED GOODS REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-139 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2004-2

SOR/2004-169 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-218 — ORDER AMENDING THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARKS ORDER

SOR/2004-311 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-314 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE TOWN OF JASPER ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-316 — CIFTA REMISSION ORDER, 2003 EXTENSION ORDER

SOR/2004-319 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986

SOR/2004-320 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2004-321 — NUNAVUT SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-322 — NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-323 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2005-161 — ORDER 2005-87-03-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2005-162 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-163 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2005-166 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2005-2

SOR/2005-167 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1397 — SCHEDULE F)

SOR/2005-169 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART VI)

SOR/2005-171 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CHILDREN OF DECEASED VETERANS EDUCATION ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-176 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ACCOUNTING FOR IMPORTED GOODS AND PAYMENT OF DUTIES REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-181 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-183 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STAMPING AND MARKING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-184 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS RELIEVING SPECIAL DUTY ON CERTAIN TOBACCO PRODUCTS

SOR/2005-185 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-191 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2005-194 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-195 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2005-196 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (M'CHIGEEN FIRST NATION)

SOR/2005-197 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2005-199 — ORDER 2005-87-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Szabo): Our next meeting is Thursday, November 2, same time and location. Thank you kindly for your attention and participation. We will try to get a reminder to you about some sort of a time slot in our next meeting to address some of the principles or rules of the game that we would like to seek some consensus on, as to how we improve the flow of paperwork.

The committee adjourned.

---