---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 7 - Evidence, May 28, 2009

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, May 28, 2009

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:37 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator J. Trevor Eyton and Mr. Andrew Kania (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Let us proceed with the first agenda item.

SOR/2007-23 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 7A:1.)

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Because of the failure to obtain the required Governor-in-Council approval during January 2007, a tariff increase was collected without proper authority. Initially, the committee was told the additional amounts collected would be reimbursed. Ultimately, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority advised that it had decided not to reimburse these amounts and that it considered the matter closed. No further explanation was forthcoming.

On April 2, the committee decided to order the authority to produce a certified copy of the minutes of the board meeting at which the decision was taken. The authority has provided the requested document. The minutes state that the decision not to reimburse was due to the Auditor General issuing an opinion that the publication in the Canada Gazette of December 2006 validly fixed the fees.

It is not clear why the Auditor General came to this conclusion. The Pilotage Act requires that any changes to the tariffs be approved by the Governor-in-Council. Because of an error, this approval was not given.

In fact, it was for this reason that SOR/2007-23 was made. In the impact analysis statement accompanying that regulation, it states it is essential to correct this error and replace those charges with the attached schedule to allow the authority to collect the increase. Even on its own analysis, the authority agreed there was a problem.

It is most likely that the Auditor General was focusing on section 33(3) of the act, which requires that the tariffs be fair and reasonable. Having considered the increased tariffs, I think probably it was concluded that the tariffs were fair and reasonable, and therefore validly put in place.

If that is the case, that opinion is not really a dissenting one with respect to the committee's position. The Auditor General and the committee were simply looking at two different things. I doubt that the Auditor General was focusing on the procedures for approval, gazetting, the Statutory Instrument Act and so on.

To clarify that matter, I suggest that the committee seek a copy of the Auditor General's letter and see exactly what the reasoning was.

Mr. Lee: Of course, I think the fees are fair and reasonable. The only problem is that they were collected illegally in the month of January 2007.

Mr. Szabo: I am concerned that if we ask for a hard copy and do not talk to someone, we may not obtain the detail we need. I think we have to talk to the Auditor General and obtain the answers to the questions that the counsel has raised.

The interpretation of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority as to what the Auditor General was saying is one thing; but what she was opining on might have been a different thing totally. What we are concerned about is different than all the others.

This possibility raises a question with regard to the Auditor General's decision — whether or not information or opinions given provided truthful and plain disclosure of the issues, which I do not think was the case. Ultimately, we will probably find out that the Laurentian Pilotage Authority is grasping at straws here and may have not have given full disclosure to its board members about the basis on which information was obtained and is being used for a decision.

My recommendation would be not only to ask for a letter, which may open up even more questions from us. I think ultimately a meeting is needed with the Auditor General's office, with a copy of the correspondence that is referred to, to make sure what the facts are and then we might be able to make a decision. I am happy to accompany one of the co- chairs or whoever to speak to the Auditor General's office about the item.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we proceed in a step-by-step process. I think the first step is to request the letter. If the letter is insufficient, then I agree with my colleague that we take the second step, which is to ask the Auditor General to perhaps come in and explain the letter. The first step is to ask for the letter.

Mr. Szabo: I want to be clear. I do not suggest that the Auditor General come here. She has her letter. To have the meeting, let us go over this item and make sure, before we go somewhere.

I think counsel is right. I think information has been relied upon that was not based on the full facts.

Her letter and her representations have been misused. She should be aware of that misuse so that the discussion is through her and not through Laurentian Pilotage Authority. I do not think that they should know what we are doing.

Mr. Saxton: Shall I ask the Auditor General directly for the letter?

Mr. Szabo: There is no problem meeting with the Auditor General to review this matter. She has been referred to in this correspondence, probably as a courtesy and because we are questioning the matter. She should have been advised by the Pilotage Authority as well, but was not.

Mr. Lee: We should not take the time of the Auditor General on this issue. Instead, we should obtain a copy of the letter, or other document, that the Laurentian Pilotage Authority is relying on to verify that the Auditor General's words have been misunderstood or misused. I hope that the correspondence will continue to urge Laurentian Pilotage Authority to reconsider their decision to close the file. We should encourage them to look again at mechanisms to provide credits or reimbursements before we may get around to dealing with that item later. I will stop there.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): As a matter of process, are we at the stage of asking for the letter, including the surrounding circumstances, so that we have a full understanding, assuming that it does not convey all the necessary information? First, will counsel ask for the letter? Second, will counsel ask the Laurentian Pilotage Authority to relate the conversation and the relevant background to the letter?

Mr. Lee: I agree.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): At our next meeting, we could have a report.

Mr. Saxton: It makes sense.

Senator Moore: Chair, can we call them to ask that they fax a copy of the letter to the committee? Might this take another week or another month to resolve? How do we proceed? Does counsel phone someone at the Laurentian Pilotage Authority and say: We would like to have a copy of that letter; can you fax it over? Alternatively, will obtaining this information mean another month of waiting?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Mr. Bernhardt suggested to me that he would make a couple of phone calls.

Senator Moore: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are we agreed?

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): There should be ordinary dialogue around the letter to try to understand its background better.

Senator Moore: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Keep notes of the conversations and, if need be, we can send a letter thereafter depending on their level of cooperation.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/89-93 — ONTARIO FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1989

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 7B:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: As long-time members on the committee are too well aware, it has long been the position of the committee that subsection 36(2) of these regulations is not authorized under the Fisheries Act. It purports to impose criminal liability for contravening the terms and conditions of a licence without express authority in the act. While not accepting the committee's position, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has agreed to amend the Fisheries Act to, in its words, to ``clarify'' the authority for the provision.

Six attempts have been made over the last 12 years to resolve the committee's objection by changing the Fisheries Act in addition to two disallowance reports that were referred back to the committee by the House of Commons as a result of the tabling of two of these bills.

On March 12, the joint chairmen wrote to the minister to ask whether it was expected that new legislation would be introduced yet again. This letter also made the suggestion that a short bill dealing with the committee's concern might have a better chance of success. The minister's reply states that it is her intention to pursue amendments to the Fisheries Act, although it is not entirely clear whether this refers to a complete rewrite of the Fisheries Act or simply to a less ambitious bill. She also makes an offer to appear before the committee.

At this time, I am not sure that much is to be gained by further discussion of the issue. This item has been thrashed out thoroughly over the years with a succession of ministers and officials. The government does not agree with the committee, but it has accepted, in its words, to ``clarify'' the act.

The question is: How and when will this act be clarified? Perhaps it is sufficient for the purpose to write a further letter asking for particulars as to exactly what this legislative initiative will be and when a bill can be expected.

Senator Moore: Although I have not seen an example in the last few years, we used to have a process whereby miscellaneous statutes were cleaned up by one grouping of various small amendments. I have not seen that practice recently.

Mr. Bernhardt: No, you are right.

Senator Moore: Would that approach be an appropriate and easy way to fix this and other issues?

Mr. Bernhardt: I asked that question not long ago in the course of a meeting with people from the Department of Justice on a completely unrelated matter. It has come to our attention too that there used to be such bills every couple of years. It has been five or six years, I believe, since the last one. You are right; the committee found it useful in such cases. We often had a few amendments in those bills. I asked what its status was and was told that the program still exists.

Senator Moore: What was it called?

Mr. Bernhardt: It was the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program. They are still accumulating possible suggestions for inclusion. However, there seems to be nothing on the immediate horizon. I am not sure why that is, but that was the answer I received. The program still exists, but they do not anticipate drafting such a bill in the near future.

Senator Moore: It is too bad because it was a tidy way to clean up many of these issues. After all the back and forth correspondence, we finally have an agreement from the department that they are prepared to acknowledge our position and to fix the problem. Now, it is a matter of when that will happen and how. The Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program was a tidy way to help all departments that were dealing with small issues. How can we urge that bill to happen? Is there a way to suggest setting such a bill in motion or do we have to wait for Justice to initiate it?

Mr. Bernhardt: Perhaps the committee can ask the chair to write to the minister to make the point that the committee considers it a useful program and urge the department's support because it has been a while since that kind of bill came forward.

Senator Moore: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Szabo: The issue has a long history with this committee. If this approach holds potential relief from the issue and allows us to close the file, we should do more than write to the minister. Instead, we should go after a resolution aggressively. Who would be against it? With the minister onside and an established program available for such purposes, which also has had acceptance in Parliament, then we should make it happen. We have a stake in this resolution and the tools to make it happen in both Houses.

Mr. Lee: I believe that one question was whether the minister would appear before the committee. The offer to appear seems to be in good faith — a proposal to invest time to explain to the committee what the future might hold in terms of an amendment. However, the most efficient way to obtain that information is to put it in writing to say that we will be happy to receive her views in a letter. However, if she prefers to appear before the committee, we should not turn her down, provided the appearance does not become a total waste of time. We should acknowledge her offer. I will let the joint chairs and counsel determine the next steps.

Mr. Young: I am not sure about the impact of Mr. Szabo's suggestion.

Mr. Bernhardt: In a sense, there are two tracks on this issue. We have an undertaking from the government to make the amendment. For the committee's purposes, there are two questions: When can the bill be expected? Will it be a short bill dealing with the committee's concern or yet another complete rewrite of the Fisheries Act?

I am not sure it is necessary to have the minister take the time and effort to come in personally to provide answers to those two questions; I think those answers could be provided in an exchange of correspondence.

Senator Moore also raised the issue as to whether there might be a third way to resolve this issue, which is through a miscellaneous statute law amendment bill. As he explained, this bill is an omnibus bill that makes dozens and dozens of corrections and technical changes to bills all across the statute book. The Department of Justice used to introduce one of those bills every couple of years, and apparently they still run the program, although it has been a long time since there was a bill.

The suggestion, then, more generally, is to give a vote of support from the committee for that program. At the same time, a specific suggestion can be made that, if there is a bill, these amendments can be included in that bill, as well. The difficulty is that the impression I was given by the Department of Justice is that there may not be one of these bills for some time yet, although I have no idea why.

Mr. Young: Why do we not write to the minister and ask the minister to describe how comprehensive the amendments might be in a new bill, and when the new bill can be expected?

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): We have three alternatives before us. We have the specific bill, we have the comprehensive bill — amending and including our change — and then the miscellaneous bill that Senator Moore has brought up. The correspondence can refer to the variety of choices here, asking the minister to tell us how they will resolve the issue and when.

Mr. Szabo: We will not pass a fisheries bill through this Parliament. It will not happen.

We have been promised a fisheries bill so many times. They are not even close in terms of the drafting. I have asked the minister herself; it is not on the agenda.

The key is that this minister has taken a position that brings us together. The previous ministers have fought us on this issue. This point is significant. The issue has momentum. How many years has this issue been with us, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: It was first before the committee in 1998.

Mr. Szabo: If anybody here is concerned about costs of conducting parliamentary business or whatever, this item has cost us tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in time going back and forth.

Forget about a bill. It will not happen. Asking the minister to come up with a bill to amend is something else. We can pursue the other option but encourage this one like no one's business. The bill will not be a big deal. They know what the changes are already; they have known for years what changes must be made. They are in all our correspondence, as well.

Let us take up her invitation, as Mr. Lee said, and raise this issue about the miscellaneous statute amendment bill. That option can be pursued on a separate track with Justice Canada officials to see whether it is possible and what threshold they need to pursue it. I do not know how many amendments are needed but probably not too many. However, if they are ready to go, or can go, on those amendments that are not controversial in either house, that bill can be fast-tracked with the consent of all parties.

If the minister or the department can see their way clear that these changes to satisfy our concerns are not onerous, we should know what they are and try to facilitate this bill with the full support of this committee and, I assume, both houses.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): All right. Is there agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/98-2 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/99-169 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-435 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 7C:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: At its March 26 meeting, the committee noted that, although the Canadian Food Inspection Agency advised it was exploring opportunities to amend the Fish Inspection Act and that it would make some unspecified amendments to the regulations, it had still not replied on the actual substance of the matters dealt with in counsel's May 1, 2007 letter. The joint chairmen, therefore, sought the minister's cooperation in ensuring that a detailed reply on each particular point was furnished, and asked for an update on the consideration of amending the act itself.

The minister's reply indicates his intent to introduce amendments to the act at the earliest possible opportunity to address the committee's concerns over the absence of authority for a number of aspects in regulations. The minister also promised a further letter from officials on the regulations themselves. That further letter was forthcoming. It still makes no reply on each specific point but it states that all outstanding issues will be addressed.

Putting the two undertakings together, I suppose that response may be satisfactory for the time being. I have one additional suggestion, perhaps: It seems to be implicit in the minister's reply that there is now acceptance that authority for some provisions currently in the regulations is lacking; perhaps an undertaking to remake these once the act has been amended should also be sought. This undertaking would remove any uncertainty as to their validity. It is a question for members as to whether they are satisfied with those undertakings.

Mr. Lee: I thought there could have been some reference to a timetable. I appreciate the circumstance the public servant finds herself in when the minister says, please give them a reply, but the reply was the barest of minimums. It had only slightly more substance than a letter of acknowledgment, although she reaffirms the commitment of the department to make the changes. However, that reply does not help us decide our next steps.

I think we should try to get more on the public record. Politely go back and say: thank you very much for endorsing all these changes; can you give us some idea when you will embark on the legislative change; can you firm up a little bit on the timetable; then we are doing our job and you are doing your job.

Senator Moore: That item is another one that can be included in the miscellaneous statutes amendment process.

Mr. Bernhardt: Something significant must be kept in mind: The undertaking to amend the act is new. The problem here is fundamental in the sense that the regulations do not have a lot to do with the act. To put it bluntly, the act is small — one could say — ``skeletal,'' but it is beyond that: It is from another time. It envisages an enforcement regime that simply is not in the regulations.

I think the department is faced with either removing the regulations completely and having no regulation, or keeping the scheme it wants, which requires a completely new act. To some extent, they have walked away at least from the pretence that everything is fine, that yes, the act authorizes the regulations. They will redo the act.

As Mr. Lee pointed out, there is a difficulty from the officials' perspective in saying the government will introduce a bill within the next month. That is something the officials cannot be asked. I suppose the minister can be asked whether the government intends to introduce the bill quickly.

However, the concern is substantial. We are looking at a completely new Fish Inspection Act.

Senator Moore: What action are we taking, then? Are we following Mr. Lee's suggestion that we seek a timetable for moving forward?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are all agreed with that suggestion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-109 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 7D:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: These regulations define an ``off-site treatment facility'' to mean ``a facility that treats effluent from a mill to reduce or eliminate deleterious substances, where the facility is not owned by the owner of a mill.'' There are then requirements on the operators of mills who discharge effluent to such facilities.

The definition of ``off-site treatment facility'' is broad enough to include a municipal water treatment system. In fact, there are discharges from paper mills into municipal water treatment systems.

The committee has expressed doubt whether placing effluent from a mill into an off-site treatment facility, OSTF, can constitute the deposit of the substance in any place where it may enter water frequented by fish. Those deposits are prohibited under the Fisheries Act.

In addition, if discharging mill effluent to an off-site treatment facility such as a municipal sewer system contravenes the act, it must follow that the act is contravened each time any household connected to a municipal sewage system puts a deleterious substance into the system. On what basis can one activity be distinguished from the other?

The department has steadfastly refused to address this question. The attempts to have the department deal with the logical consequence of its position are described in the note prepared for members this morning. Most recently, the minister's cooperation was sought to obtain a reply.

The result was the letter of March 17 from the department. Again, it states that the connection to the sewer collection system marks the point of deposit by the mill. Of course, this statement is simply a conclusion.

The only argument the department advances is the single sentence that ``The foreseeability of risk that a deleterious substance deposited from a mill to an OSTF will end up in water frequented by fish makes it subject to the prohibition. . . .'' The point is that precisely the same can be said for any deleterious substance that enters a municipal sewage system, regardless of where it comes from. The department still refuses to deal with that point.

I think it is clear by now that the department does not want to address the fundamental question raised by the committee. It is suggested the minister be advised that this committee continues to desire that the department do so without further delay or dissembling.

Senator Moore: I want to get this matter straight. Is the official saying that to deposit deleterious material in an off- site facility is okay?

Mr. Bernhardt: No; they are saying that it is a deposit of a deleterious substance into a place where it may enter water frequented by fish.

Senator Moore: That is okay?

Mr. Bernhardt: No; then it is prohibited, except in accordance with the regulations. The regulations place reporting requirements on people who make these deposits. As long as they report it, they can dump anything they want into the system.

If they do not report it, it becomes an illegal deposit. The deposit is the same; the consequence is the same.

First, it is hard to see that it is a deposit of a deleterious substance. They are putting it into a municipal sewage system. Second, if it is a deposit of a deleterious substance, then everything that goes into the municipal sewage system that can be harmful to fish is also prohibited by the Fisheries Act.

None of those deposits are authorized by the regulations.

Senator Moore: I hope not.

Mr. Bernhardt: That means that every time household waste goes into a municipal system, that is a breach of the Fisheries Act. The department cannot have it both ways. Or, if it wants to have it both ways, it has to explain what the difference is.

The fact that the department has not explained what the difference is speaks volumes. If there is a simple explanation, I think the committee would have received it by now.

Mr. Lee: The real problem is not the fact that we have a sweeping regulation that may cover every flushing toilet in the country, but that we will end up with inconsistent enforcement vis-à-vis the citizen. In other words, the department has a regulation in place that, on the face of its words and the way it is being interpreted by the department, is potentially enforceable against every citizen, including people working at a sink in their garage putting whatever down the drain. That situation is the problem.

The issue is a technical regulatory issue in terms of definition. It is also, in theory — broad brushstrokes — a civil liberty thing, where the ambit of the wording of the regulation is much too broad. Do I have that right?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes; keep in mind, too, that there is no question that when the municipality deposits substances into lakes and rivers, that action is definitely a deposit.

Mr. Lee: The municipality is a bad boy, too.

Mr. Bernhardt: That can be enforced and, in fact, municipalities are charged. In a sense, the effect on the environment is identical either way. It is simply the case that the department wants these people to tell them what they are putting into the system. When they tell the department, there is no restriction on what they can put in.

Mr. Saxton: Households do not have to tell them.

Mr. Bernhardt: No, but on the department's interpretation, they could be required to.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: What happens when these federal government departments are involved in a TCE spill? Are charges laid? Departments like National Defence do not even acknowledge their own responsibility. It is a case of a double standard at play. I can understand the average person not doing anything, but I cannot understand a department not doing anything. I call on the Department of National Defence to take a look at the 1,700 sites contaminated by the use of TCE. Machinery degreasing compounds are being discharged into the water. Nothing was done to help communities like Shannon where people developed cancers linked to water contamination. There is a bit of a contradiction here.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): The suggestion was made to write the minister. Do people agree with that suggestion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/93-108 — QUEBEC BEEF CATTLE PRODUCERS' LEVIES OR CHARGES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE) ORDER

SOR/93-195 — QUEBEC MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS' LEVY (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE) ORDER

SOR/93-382 — PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CATTLE MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 7E:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: These three files are grouped together because there are outstanding promises of action on each file that are ready to be followed up. The files were all given together in the course of a meeting some time ago with department officials when they were before the committee. That link is the only one here. After the meeting, the files probably can be pursued separately.

The one outstanding matter that is still in dispute concerns the first one, SOR/ 93-108. This order was made pursuant to the Quebec Beef Cattle Order. It grants authority to the provincial federation to fix by order the levies or charges imposed on persons residing in Quebec who are engaged in interprovincial or international marketing or production of beef cattle.

The levies order incorporates by reference the regulations made under the provincial authority over marketing within the province, as those regulations are amended from time to time. In the opinion of the committee, this incorporation by reference does not fix the charges in the federal order.

The department does not share this view. For its part, the committee has not been swayed by the reasons outlined in the department's correspondence.

In this instance, the concern is not whether incorporation by reference as amended from time to time is an illegal sub-delegation. It is that such an incorporation is contrary to the parent order because the levies and charges will not be fixed by federal order; they will be fixed by provincial regulations.

Any legislation introduced as a result of the committee's report on incorporation by reference from the last Parliament that will deal with the use of this technique generally may or may not then resolve this concern. In light of that situation, it is suggested that the matter be pursued through a letter to the minister at this time.

Mr. Lee: Can I ask counsel to refresh our collective memory? Was there not a small window of potential exception for open or ambulatory incorporation by reference created by court decisions dealing with federal-provincial relationships? Is this one of those relationships?

Mr. Bernhardt: I believe that you are referring to constitutional interdelegation, which allows this kind of scheme from a constitutional perspective. Dropping down to the administrative law perspective, they still require the authority in the federal and provincial legislation to allow them to set this up. The federal order has to fix the levy, and that is the issue.

Mr. Lee: I understand. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there comments? The suggestion is to write to the minister. Are all agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-346 — PROTECTION OF PASSENGER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 7F:1.)

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: Following the committee's last review of this instrument, further advice was sought on June 11, 2008, from the Canada Border Services Agency on three points. Amendments in relation to other points were already promised. The CBSA indicates that before these amendments will be made, changes must be sought first to an agreement between Canada and the European Community concerning the treatment of passenger information. It was expected that the negotiation process for these changes would begin in early 2009.

I will address outstanding point 2 and point 6 together. Point 2 concerns the current lack of definitions for several broad and vague terms, such as ``terrorism-related crimes.'' The committee suggested that the terms in question be reformulated and defined to conform to terms established by Parliament in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code. Point 6 deals with the type of protection that must be provided to passenger information when shared with other federal departments or foreign states. The committee sought clarifications concerning the details of the protection required by the regulations and suggested that the criteria for determining whether the same type of protection is provided by another entity should be set out in the regulations.

The agency's reply does not address the committee's concerns on these two points except to say that counsel's letters concerning this instrument have been provided to the officials responsible for negotiating changes to the agreement with the European Community and that the agency cannot guarantee that any changes will meet the committee's concerns. This response seems insufficient because no information is provided concerning clarification on the current effect of the regulations. It would be helpful to know whether the agency agrees with the committee's recommendations.

On point 4, the agency reply seems to miss the point. Paragraph 7(2)(b) and 7(4)(b) apply in different circumstances and appear intended to describe when elements in passenger information that can be used to identify a passenger can be accessed. The agency's reply seems concerned about whether these provisions are described as permissive or restrictive, but this distinction seems beside the point. Simply put, paragraph 7(2)(b) addresses only access to the name of a person, whereas paragraph 7(4)(b) addresses access to information ``that could serve to identify the person to whom the information relates.''

This latter passage indicates that more than only the name of a passenger can be used to identify the passenger. Addressing only access to the name of a passenger seems pointless because it will not prevent the identification of a passenger.

Perhaps one more attempt to explain this concern to the agency will be fruitful. A further letter can be drafted in pursuit of these matters to seek information as to the current status of the negotiations with the European Community.

Mr. Lee: I agree with counsel's suggestion. However, I emphasize my view for the record: The CBSA is a relatively new agency with no oversight mechanism extant, not even a statutory-based complaints mechanism. The agency deals with tons of personal information and they intersect with individuals 24 hours per day.

From a civil liberties point of view, we should hang on to this issue like a bulldog to ensure that the agency begins to acknowledge these underlying issues as they go about their work. I am not saying that CBSA does not proceed with its work in good faith but to fulfill our job at committee on behalf of the people we represent, we should not let go of this issue. We must be clear and firm, and articulate these principles well when we deal with the CBSA. We need to continue in that vein until such time as Parliament constructs an oversight mechanism for the CBSA.

Mr. Szabo: This kind of situation arises frequently, and that is why we have a heading in the committee agenda, ``Reply Unsatisfactory.'' This case seems typical whereby specific points raised by the committee in writing have not been addressed.

Perhaps it is necessary to bring it back to the committee for authorization to trigger another letter to say that they did not reply to our question. I suggest that the committee consider this action; give the discretion to counsel that when specific information requests have been made and not responded to, it should be automatic that we bring the matter to their attention and ask them to respond in full to the original letter.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are members agreed on that point?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-241 — RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 7G:1.)

Mr. Abel: Amendments to these procedural rules were promised and, following the committee's consideration on June 12, 2008, suggestions to amend the rules in relation to five other points were made, all of which concerned drafting matters. The reply from the Military Police Complaints Commission indicates that it is considering a major overhaul of the rules and perhaps a replacement of them entirely. However, the commission cannot make this determination until its current hearings are complete, which can take some time. Given that any amendments to the rules can be several years away, perhaps in the interim, substantive replies to the remaining outstanding points should be sought. At the very least, it would be useful to learn whether the complaints commission agrees with the committee's views on these points.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-281 — BY-LAW NO. 7 RESPECTING THE LARGE VALUE TRANSFER SYSTEM

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 7H:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Sixteen points were raised in respect of the by-law. We have a promise to make amendments to address the problems noted in points 1 to 6, points 12 to 14 and point 16 of the correspondence. Concerning point 3, which dealt with the validity of section 12 of the by-law, an amendment to the Canadian Payments Act has been made. The department has announced that section 12 will be remade pursuant to the new enabling authority.

As the note explains, it is suggested that the responses on points 8 to 10 are satisfactory. That leaves only points 7, 11 and 15, which are discussed in the covering note.

Briefly, point 7 concerns section 37, which states that the provision is ``subject to any statutory or regulatory constraints.'' This reference is intended to refer not only to federal acts and regulations but also to directives, court orders and other unspecified things. Clearly, that intention is not reflected in the present wording. In addition, the present wording, in and of itself, seems vague. It is suggested that some definition of precisely what is intended by the term ``constraint'' should be added to the by-law.

Point 11 deals with section 51 that provides, ``Nothing in sections 43 to 50 affects any right or remedy that a . . . person may have under the general law, including . . . the law governing mistake, unjust enrichment or restitution.'' This provision either states what would be the case in any event or it amounts to an unauthorized attempt to govern civil liability. It is suggested that either way, this provision should be deleted.

Point 15 concerns section 63, which permits the general manager to, in effect, grant exemptions from the application of this provision. The department indicates that it cannot set out the criteria for exercising this discretion because the criteria depend on the facts in each case, and in any event, the discretion has never been used. In other words, the power has never been exercised and the department cannot specify any circumstance in which it would be.

The obvious question, then, is: Why is the provision there at all? I suggest a further letter on these three points, as well as seeking a progress report on the amendments that were already promised.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-164 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE UNITED NATIONS AFGHANISTAN REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 7I:1.)

Mr. Abel: Seven points were raised concerning this instrument, which gives effect to resolutions made by the Security Council of the United Nations. The regulations essentially set out a scheme by which an entity listed by the Security Council is subject to certain financial sanctions and may petition the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be removed from that list.

The first point raised by counsel relates to the requirement that a regulation made under the United Nations Act be laid before Parliament forthwith after its making.

Apparently, copies of the instrument were delivered to the clerks of both the House of Commons and the Senate in less than a month after it was made, but these regulations were never tabled. If true, and errors occurred after delivery to the clerks, this delivery would have been sufficient to satisfy the minister's statutory obligation.

However, the department's April 18, 2007 letter also seems to state that the missing documents relating to this instrument are yet to be provided to the clerk of the House of Commons. It remains unclear what these documents could be, and despite further queries, the department has not yet provided a full explanation.

In connection with point 2, it was asked why the regulatory scheme should not be viewed as redundant, as a similar scheme is found in the Criminal Code to list terrorist entities. In addition to policy-based reasons provided by the department, it is indicated that criminal sanctions not related to financial matters may flow from being listed under the code.

Counsel also notes that the regulations include a few financial prohibitions not found under the code itself. Thus, despite a great deal of overlap between the two schemes, it seems they are not entirely redundant, and this situation may be viewed as acceptable.

In connection with point 3, concerning the imposition of mandatory duties on the minister and on judges by the regulations, for which the failure to fulfill amounts to an offence under the act, the department indicates that it is aware of the consequences of this approach and it intends to impose these duties, which seems satisfactory.

In connection with drafting issues identified in points 4, 5 and the second paragraph of point 6, amendments have been promised by the department.

The first paragraph of point 6 concerns the minister's obligation to provide notice of the minister's decision whether to consider a person's petition to be removed from the list maintained by the Security Council.

The department's reply seems to miss the point that the wording currently suggests that two decisions are to be made by the minister: first, whether to consider the petition at all; and second, whether, after considering the petition, the minister will submit the petition to the Security Council.

Presumably, the intention is that only one decision is to be made, whether to submit the petition to the Security Council. If so, an amendment seems warranted to make this intention clear.

Under point 7, several concerns were raised in connection with the procedure to be followed upon judicial review of the minister's decision not to consider a petition. It is suggested that the department's replies are satisfactory.

Clarification was sought concerning section 5.4(3), which allows a judge to order the minister to seek a review of the case. It was asked how this provision differs from directly asking the minister to review the case. It turns out that what is intended is that the minister bring the delisting application back to the Security Council for that body to review the case again.

In relation to concerns set out in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of point 7, which touch on standards to be applied by a judge when conducting judicial review, the restricted use of evidence obtained in confidence by the government as well as possible redundant provisions, the department indicates that these provisions mirror exactly the scheme already set out in the Criminal Code. Given the fairly similar purposes of the scheme under the code and of the regulations, despite the procedures set out as otherwise extraordinary, this reply seems acceptable.

Mr. Szabo: A lot of conversations are going on in this room beyond the table, and they are distracting. I have already asked one gentleman to keep it down, but a lot of giggling and laughing is going on back here. This is unacceptable in a committee, and if people cannot behave themselves, they should leave.

Senator Moore: Do you want a motion to clear the room? I will make it. I cannot handle this kind of banter, giggling and disrespect to the committee's proceedings. If people do not clean it up, I will make a motion to clean them out.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): I do not think we need a motion.

Mr. Saxton: I did not hear it. I cannot comment on it. Did you hear it, Mr. Lee?

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): It does not matter. The point has been made and I assume they will change their behaviour.

Mr. Abel: My last point, under point 7: It was noted that portions of the regulations are similar in effect to portions of the security certificate scheme found under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the portions of that act that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 2007. It was asked whether amendments to these regulations were being considered in light of the court's decision.

The department replied in the negative, explaining that these regulations affect only economic matters, whereas the court's decision found an infringement of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on a violation of the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The department's argument in this respect appears correct in that section 7 currently has not been considered by the courts to address economic matters. Thus, the regulations do not appear to infringe the Charter.

In conclusion, a further letter can be drafted pursuing points 1 and 6, and seeking a progress report on the amendments that have been promised.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there comments on that recommendation? All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-168 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REGULATIONS (BALANCE SHEET VALUE)

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 7J:1.)

Mr. Abel: Of the five points concerning this instrument raised with the Department of Finance, four relate to incorrect subtitles used in this instrument but that do not affect the regulations themselves. As such, the department has been made aware of these errors for future reference. One amendment is promised to correct a drafting error, and a progress report should now be sought in the usual manner.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-296 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE WILDLIFE AREA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 7K:1.)

Mr. Abel: Amendments to two provisions of the Wildlife Area Regulations were promised by the department in September of 2005. There has been a delay since, and the latest reply of August 2008 indicates that a full review of the regulations was then under way. No date for completion of that review was provided, so perhaps a progress report should now be sought. The time frame for making the promised amendments could be asked for again.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-388 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MARINE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 7L:1.)

Mr. Abel: When these regulations were last before the committee, it was noted that the promised amendments had been expected to be pre-published in the fall of 2008, which had not been done, and that this forecast was the latest of several to have been missed.

The department's letter of April 23, 2009 indicates that the drafting of the amendments is complete and that prepublication in Part I of the Canada Gazette is expected for the autumn of 2009. If the committee finds this reply satisfactory, counsel will monitor the file and follow up on it.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-112 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 7M:1.)

Mr. Abel: Following the committee's last consideration of this instrument in 2005, confirmation was sought and received from the department that section 143.2(6) of the relevant act had been erroneously cited as an enabling authority. The department also informs the committee that it has made the drafters of the next set of amendments to these regulations aware of the error. The reply seems satisfactory, and if the committee agrees, the file can then be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-109 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 7N:1.)

Mr. Abel: Two outstanding points were pursued in respect of this instrument following the committee's last review. The department's reply and the copy of the ministerial direction provided appears to resolve fully the committee's concerns that there may have been a conflict between that ministerial direction and the requirements imposed by the regulations for obtaining a social insurance card.

In connection with the department's recognition that a failure of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to perform a mandatory duty under the regulations would constitute an offence under the act, the reply is somewhat evasive, but it can at least be taken by implication that the department accepts that prosecution is a possibility, however remote it might be. If the committee is then satisfied with the reply, the file can be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-283 — SOLVENT DEGREASING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 7O:1.)

Mr. Abel: Following the committee's last review of this file, an assurance was sought from the department that the promised amendments, which were expected to be made after review of the regulations was complete, would in any case be adopted by 2010.

The department states that it intends to complete the review in 2009 but cannot confirm that, if there is a delay, the amendments will be made independently in 2010. The department commits to reconsidering the time frame in 2010, if it comes to that.

If the committee accepts this reply, a progress report can be sought in the fall, at which time the committee will have a firmer idea of the actual time frame.

Mr. Szabo: I want to understand this item a little more. This matter does not seem to be an onerous one that requires this time frame. It surprises me, and I am not sure I understand why there is a valid reason for a potential delay to the resolution.

Mr. Abel: If I can provide more background, from what we know, after the amendments were promised, there were a couple of delays. The amendments were promised in January 2006. There was a delay by December 2006, when we had another reply. Then the department indicated it wanted to undertake a broader review because it thought that other amendments not recommended by the committee might also be warranted, and that review apparently is currently what they are engaged in, but they expect there may be delays in that review as well. That is where the item stands.

Mr. Szabo: Chair, my concern is that we seem to have a straightforward issue that has been dragging on for a couple of years or more. It looks like it could go even further potentially. Someone should make sure that this issue stays on track.

This idea of a moving target for us is difficult. This is how a file becomes 20 years old. I do not know whether we can give any further encouragement. We want to see the resolution instead.

I think that is how the fisheries items went. There was not a big problem with the amendments, but they said: We will take care of them when we review the whole act.

This item is a mini version of that file. If we were to publish what is happening, for public consumption, the public will say government is not working. I hope we can indicate that as far as we are concerned, their undertakings are firm, and that they will take every opportunity to bring this file to a close.

Senator Moore: What is the significance of the fall?

Mr. Abel: The idea was simply that by the fall, at least, the department should be able to indicate whether there has been a delay in completing their review.

Senator Moore: So it will take that long for them to know that the review is complete?

Mr. Abel: We can ask now for an update on where the item is going. I think the idea is simply that since it will not return to the committee until the fall, we might as well give them the time to see what happens. We can ask right after the meeting to see where they are.

Senator Moore: I think you should. Aside from the rhythm of the sitting of Parliament and the committees, our counsel's work goes on. I do not want these people to use the parliamentary calendar not to push to resolve these matters in the way the committee would like to see them resolved.

Mr. Bernhardt: Perhaps, then, we will ask for a progress report right now and we will make it clear that if this review will be delayed beyond 2009, the committee expects that its amendments will be proceeded with independently. The committee asked for that assurance before and was told: We cannot, or we would rather not.

The committee's wish could be that, regardless of that advice, the committee's expectation is that these amendments will go ahead independently.

Senator Moore: Maybe these matters are clearer for them now.

Mr. Bernhardt: Fair enough.

Mr. Szabo: That is fine. As long as we just do not roll with their way, and we make our own way, that is fine.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-201 — AGRICULTURE PRODUCT PRIORITY CLAIM (BANKS) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 7P:1.)

Mr. Abel: In respect of this instrument, a concern was raised with the department that the Governor-in-Council had gone beyond her authority to prescribe an amount for the purposes of the Bank Act by setting out a formula to determine that amount, which contained a variable that would change over time. As the committee has previously considered, the power to prescribe an amount is a narrow enabling authority that requires the amount specified, whether by formula or not, to be determinable at all future periods at the time of making the regulations. Otherwise, it cannot be said that an amount was prescribed.

In this case, the department correctly indicates that a provision of the Bank Act also provides express authority to set out how a prescribed amount is to be determined, which would appear to remove the concern that the regulations may be ultra vires.

However, the department's reply also asserts that notwithstanding this power, the general power to prescribe an amount would, in itself, permit the setting out of a formula, on the condition that the elements of the formula can be established and that the amount can be determined easily at the relevant time it is implied.

This suggestion is clearly contrary to the committee's previous conclusions on this matter in respect of the Letter Mail Regulations and the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations. Perhaps the reasons and the citation of authorities that the committee provided in respect of those instruments should be conveyed to the department.

In addition, counsel notes that the French version of section 978(1)(a) and (b) of the Bank Act could be clarified to set out clearly the power to determine how an amount may be prescribed for the purposes of the act, as the English version already clearly does. Members may refer to the second page of the note prepared today on this file for the suggested change.

If the committee is in agreement with these suggestions, a further letter can be sent pursuing these matters.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-753 — INDIAN OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS, 1995

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 7Q:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Nineteen amendments are to be made following amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Act itself. The amendments to the act were introduced in the last Parliament, but the bill died on dissolution. The amendments were reintroduced in this Parliament as Bill C-5. They received Royal Assent on May 14.

The last advice from the department was that consultation on the drafting of amendments to the regulations would begin as soon as the bill received Royal Assent. At this time, perhaps the department can be asked whether it can give a proposed time frame for completing the amendments. As well, the precise wording of certain promised amendments had yet to be determined, and this matter can be followed up at the same time.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We are now moving to item 10 on the agenda, Action Promised, and we will let counsel take us through this item en masse.

SOR/2000-183 — REGULATIONS AMENDING AND REPEALING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, 1999-2 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 7R:1.)

SOR/2007-77— PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREA REGULATIONS, 2007

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 7S:1.)

SOR/2007-223 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 7T:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Certainly, chair: Following on the usual practice of dealing with the last three headings as simply groups under ``Action Promised,'' there are a total of 20 promised amendments in connection with the three instruments listed. Progress on these instruments will be followed up after the meeting.

In addition, the amendments to the Seeds Regulations made by SOR/2007-223 made three promised amendments. Most significant among those amendments is the addition, at the committee's suggestion, of a review mechanism where the granting or renewal of a person's accreditation is refused.

SI/2007-80 — WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (NAHANNI NATIONAL PARK RESERVE OF CANADA ) FROM DISPOSAL ORDER

SI/2008-101 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (NAHANNI NATIONAL PARK RESERVE OF CANADA) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 7U:1.)

SI/2008-102 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (EDÉHZÍE (HORN PLATEAU)) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 7V:1.)

SI/2007-68 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (DEH CHO FIRST NATIONS, N.W.T.)

SI/2008-103 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (DEHCHO FIRST NATIONS) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix W, p. 7W:1.)

SOR/2009-84 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix X, p. 7X:1.)

SOR/2009-93 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SULPHUR IN GASOLINE REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix Y, p. 7Y:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: The seven instruments under agenda item, Action Taken, resolve 14 concerns raised by the committee. I draw members' attention in particular to SOR/2009-84, which removed a reporting requirement from the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. The committee had concluded that in the absence of a clear authority for regulations imposing reporting requirements, officials would have to rely on their general powers to require the production of documents.

SI/88-95 — CECIL H. GREEN INC. REMISSION ORDER

SI/88-161 — TEMPORARY ENTRY REMISSION ORDER NO. 25

SI/2008-70 — ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENTS DONE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT

SI/2008-73 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS RESPECTING BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL DEALINGS BETWEEN KARLHEINZ SCHREIBER AND THE RIGHT HONOURABLE BRIAN MULRONEY AS A DEPARTMENT AND DESIGNATING THE PRIME MINISTER AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI//2008-95 — ORDER RESPECTING EX GRATIA PAYMENTS TO VETERANS AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WORKERS INVOLVED IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING OR NUCLEAR DECONTAMINATION

SI/2008-133 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT OFFICE

SI/2008-134 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT TO THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2006

SI/2008-135 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE TO THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO MULTICULTURALISM

SI/2008-137 — ORDER AMENDING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2006-37

SI/2008-139 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 10, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI/2008-140 — ORDER REFERRING BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2008-222 FOR A BROADCASTING LICENCE BY ASTRAL MEDIA RADIO INC.

SI/2008-141 — ORDER REFERRING BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2008-222 FOR A BROADCASTING LICENCE BY FRANK TORRES

SI/2008-143 — REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES

SI/2008-144 — PROCLAMATION PROROGUING PARLIAMENT TO JANUARY 26, 2009

SI/2008-145 — PROCLAMATION SUMMONING PARLIAMENT TO MEET JANUARY 26, 2009

SI/2008-146 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

SI/2008-147 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 3, 2009 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SOR/97-173 — REGULATIONS PRESCRIBING THE FEES TO BE PAID FOR A PEST CONTROL PRODUCT APPLICATION EXAMINATION SERVICE PROVIDED BY OR ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF CANADA, FOR A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE TO MANUFACTURE OR SELL A PEST CONTROL PRODUCT IN CANADA AND FOR ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMIT IN RELATION TO A PEST CONTROL PRODUCT

SOR/2000-312 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FEES IN RESPECT OF MEDICAL DEVICES REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-146 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-170 — ORDER AMENDING THE ALBERTA HOG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2006-190 — EXEMPTION ORDER FOR CERTAIN LICENCES, AUTHORIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS (WHITE STURGEON)

SOR/2006-226 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PUBLIC PORTS AND PUBLIC PORT FACILITIES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2006-278 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PORT AUTHORITIES OPERATIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-8 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MANITOBA SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-286 — SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (BURMA) PERMIT AUTHORIZATION ORDER

SOR/2008-6 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2008-8 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-9 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG AND CHICK ORDERLY MARKETING REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-10 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG (INTERPROVINCIAL) PRICING REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-11 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG AND CHICK LICENSING REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-91 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-93 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2008-94 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

Mr. Bernhardt: Finally, under ``Statutory Instruments Without Comment,'' 34 instruments are listed that have been reviewed and found to comply with all the committee's criteria.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Any comments on any of those items? Are there any other matters that anyone wishes to raise?

We will provide you with an update now in terms of the Australia trip.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): From the Senate point of view, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration yesterday. I tabled the budget and spoke in favour of the budget as tabled, which you saw and which we approved at the last meeting.

In summary, as far as the Senate is concerned, the total requested was $34,686, of which $26,586 related to the Australia trip. The Australia trip, as you saw in the budget, provides for a total of five in the party. It would be four committee members and a staff member. Internal Economy is meeting now, at the same time as our meeting. I hoped I would have their decision. I am moderately optimistic that we will receive the money required. The issue they were looking at is that the Australia portion, the $26,586, exceeds the $20,000 limit that was imposed on conference fees. Looking at both our history and the fact that we are typically greatly under-budget every year, there has been an accumulated savings over 10 years. We have not had a trip for ten years. The conference will be useful and practical likely, and the amount required is relatively modest, compared to a variety of other committees.

I am moderately optimistic we will receive the money. I expected to hear already, but we may hear any minute now. I have not received a response yet.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): For my part, I am appearing before the subcommittee of the House of Commons Liaison Committee today at 1 p.m. I know Mr. Szabo is on that subcommittee, and I think Mr. Lee is on that subcommittee. There are at least two persons that will support this request on that committee.

Our next meeting is June 11. Unless there is anything else, we will adjourn the meeting.

(The committee adjourned.)

---