---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 1 - Evidence,  March 25, 2010

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:37 a.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate and standing order 106(1) of the House of Commons, to organize the activities of the committee.

[English]

Marcy Zlotnick, Joint Clerk of the Committee: Good morning, honourable members.

[Translation]

As joint clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the Senate joint chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.

[English]

Senator Wallace: I am honoured and pleased to nominate Senator Yonah Martin for that position.

Ms. Zlotnick: Thank you, Senator Wallace. Are there any other nominations?

Senator Moore: I move they cease.

Ms. Zlotnick: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Wallace that the Honourable Senator Martin do assume the role of joint chair of this committee.

Is it your pleasure, honourable members, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Ms. Zlotnick: I declare the motion carried and invite Senator Martin to take her place.

Senator Yonah Martin (Joint Chair) in the chair.

Ms. Zlotnick: I now turn the proceedings over to my co-clerk for the election of the chair from the House of Commons.

Graeme Truelove, Joint Clerk of the Committee: We can now proceed to the election of the chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Lee: I nominate Andrew Kania as joint chair from the House.

Mr. Truelove: Are there any other nominations?

Senator Moore: I move they cease.

Mr. Truelove: Is it your pleasure, honourable members, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Truelove: I invite Mr. Kania to take the chair.

Mr. Andrew Kania (Joint Chair) in the chair.

Mr. Truelove: We will move to election of vice-chairs for the House of Commons. Pursuant to the standing orders, the first vice-chair comes from the government and the second vice-chair comes from the opposition, other than the official opposition.

Mr. Albrecht: I nominate Mr. Galipeau as first vice-chair.

Mr. Truelove: Is it your pleasure, honourable members, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Szabo: I nominate Mr. Masse as the second vice-chair.

Mr. Truelove: Are there any other motions?

Senator Moore: I move they cease.

Mr. Truelove: Is it your pleasure, honourable members, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Welcome. Thank you very much. It seems strange, but I am now the veteran here although I am a first-term member of Parliament. I want to welcome my joint chair, and all the new members of the committee. I see so many new faces. I will not be long, but I want to say a couple of words.

One of the first things that retired senator Trevor Eyton said to me when I joined him as joint chair — he had been here for years, as Mr. Szabo and Mr. Lee, both former joint chairs, have been as well — is this committee is non- partisan, full stop. That is how we have to treat it.

It took a lot over the years for Parliament to form this committee. We have an important role in terms of scrutinizing regulations. Because of the nature of government at present, they cannot do everything through the main statute, so a lot of legislation is delegated, which is what regulations are. Because of that delegation, we have an obligation to make sure that those regulations — the delegated legislation — are proper, that they are within the bounds of the law. We use a number of criteria to scrutinize them, but the short of it is that we have an independent obligation to go through this process.

We do not work like other committees. We do not take turns in terms of questions to the opposition and back to the government. We look for consensus. It is rare that we have a vote. I think we have had perhaps one or two since I became a member after the last election.

We look for everybody's input, and people can speak as they want. They can interject and take multiple turns if they wish, or they do not have to say anything; it is up to them. We have an obligation to operate that way.

We have to go through the rest of the motions on the agenda. However, we have an agenda here as well and I want to address this point. I understand some persons may not have received all the material. Is that accurate? Is there anybody who did not receive the material in time?

After we go through the motions, I will ask people whether they want to proceed with a full meeting today. That decision will require consensus and that everyone has received the material and has had a chance to read it. If anybody objects, speak freely, and we will postpone to next meeting. I have asked counsel if there is anything urgent and he says there is not.

I will leave that question with you and you can ponder it while we go through the rest of the motions. Please lead us through the motions, senator.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Thank you, Mr. Joint Chair. We will move to Item 4, Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Will someone move this motion?

Senator Moore: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 5 is motion to publish the committee's proceedings.

Senator Harb: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 6 is unrevised transcripts.

Ms. Cadman: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 7 is adoption of the first report.

Senator Poirier: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 8 is authorization of expenditures.

Mr. Armstrong: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 9 is travelling and living expenses of witnesses.

Mr. Boughen: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 10 is electronic media coverage of public meetings.

Mr. Szabo: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 11 is travel by members.

Mr. Boughen: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): I am moving right through the agenda; Item 12 is communications.

Mr. Hiebert: I so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Item 13 is the time slot for regular meetings, which is today, Thursday, every second week, 8:30 to 10:30. Who will move the motion?

Ms. Zlotnick: It is not a motion, it is only for information.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): That should be 10 a.m.

Ms. Cadman: If it is 10 a.m. I will move the motion, but not 10:30.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): It is not a motion. I was excited that we were at the end.

As your new joint chair, I will say a few words. First, thank you to my joint chair Andrew Kania. We had a good meeting yesterday to introduce ourselves. I also want to thank the former joint chair, my colleague, Senator Wallace, who served on this committee.

I have heard that there are veterans on this committee with much experience and expertise along with, of course, our legal counsel. I had a chance to meet with Mr. Bernhardt, and I look forward to working with the legal team as well.

Welcome to all of you, those who are my colleagues in the Senate, as well as those from the House of Commons. It is my first time as a member of this committee. However, as I go through the documents, I can see the importance of this process, after sponsoring bills and seeing what happens in the committee meetings, to then understand and have an opportunity to examine the precision, the clarity, and the overall process of the regulatory work that our government performs.

I look forward to working with all of you — of course, leaning on my joint chair who is the veteran in this committee — and being a part of this process. Thank you to all of you for the work you have done, and to those of you who are new, like me, in being a part of this important committee. Thank you to our clerk and the staff that are here, and to our larger staff that are in this room, because we will all be part of this important process.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): In terms of the agenda, we need unanimous consent to proceed with the full meeting with all the material today. I ask for comments from everybody on whether they want to proceed, and if they have had a chance to read the material. We want to be 100-per-cent fair in going through this agenda because it is the first time for many people. Are there any comments?

Senator Poirier: If you are talking about the material in the large binder, I received it only in the last two or three days and I have not had a chance to go through it. I have gone through the first document I received, which was the procedures and background on the committee, but I have not had a chance to go through the binder. I do not know if others have.

Ms. Cadman: I think we should adjourn and come back fully prepared.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there any other comments?

Mr. Szabo: I think it would be useful to go through a couple of the items here. With the consensus of the committee, Mr. Bernhardt might want to help us through a few of the items to start committee members on a couple of issues. Other matters can be stayed to the next meeting, if the committee wishes. We are here; if we can spend a little time, it will be helpful.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there any other comments?

Senator Harb: It is a wise suggestion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): In trying to build consensus, why not pick out what truly needs to be dealt with today. A number of the items require only follow-up that we would do anyways.

Mr. Albrecht: Mr. Chair, many of us are in the same position of having received the documents only in the last few days. However, even if I had this material for another two weeks, it would not make much difference to my understanding of it. I have a sense of trust in our legal counsel, staff and the veterans of this committee. I suggest we move as expeditiously as possible through the agenda today, which will give us a fresh start for the next meeting. By that time, we will understand the process better.

Senator Poirier: I have no problem with that suggestion. I want members to be aware that I have not reviewed the documents, but I have total faith in the expertise we have at committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I suggest that we go through the agenda but if anyone wants to defer a particular item to the next meeting and take more time because they are not satisfied, we will deal with the item on an individual basis. We will go through the agenda subject to that caveat. Is it agreed?

Mr. Boughen: What is the length of time, as a rule, that we will receive the documents prior to a meeting? I agree with Mr. Albrecht that the documents are lengthy and we have many other duties to perform. This committee is not the sole function of our being.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: That is a good point. The usual course of business is to send the documents to printing the week before the meeting. They should be distributed to committee members' offices late the week before the meeting. For example, today's documents should have arrived in members' offices last Thursday or Friday at the latest.

Perhaps you might ask your staff to be on the lookout for the material so that if it does not appear or there is a problem with delivery, they can get in touch with either my office or the clerk's office. We will make sure that the documents are hand-delivered immediately.

As for the volume, which is another legitimate aspect, there is a lot of material in the large package. Part of the reason that we assemble the agenda in the way that we do is to give members some indication of items that might be more significant than others. That is why we have the various headings, such as Special Agenda Item or Letters to and from Ministers and Unsatisfactory Reply. Clearly, those issues will be more significant. Toward the end of the agenda, the items under Reply Satisfactory, Action Promised or Action Taken are relatively routine matters. At that point, there is not a great deal that needs to be resolved. The items are there for the information of committee members, such that the problem was raised and a solution was agreed on, and matters then move ahead. A complex file might contain dozens of points if the regulation is particularly contentious. You might see that counsel has raised 30 points. For such files, we will try to include a covering note that, as much as possible, condenses the points to the bare bones of the significant items. That note will serve to at least alert members to legal issues and other problems more significant than simple editorial issues.

As members gain experience in dealing with this huge volume of material that comes along every other week, they will find a way to highlight what is necessary to focus on when time is limited. Obviously, it is recognized that committee members have many pressures on their time. If they are not in a position to pour over every syllable in every document, they can review the documents and pick up the highlights so that they are prepared to deal with the more contentious and substantive issues.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there questions?

We will move to the first item on the meeting agenda. Normally, I announce the item and ask counsel to provide a summary and recommendations. We then engage in discussion and comments. Once again, we do not work by parties. We try to build consensus on how to proceed with the item and instruct counsel on the wishes of the committee.

SOR/2006-191 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NUCLEAR SECURITY REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernhardt: When this file was before the committee at the last meeting before Christmas, it was suggested that two points needed to be pursued. The first is a question of adopting consistent terminology in the French version. The second concerned section 21(1), which provides that a licensee may revoke certain authorizations, for example, an authorization to enter a protected area, if it is reasonable to believe that the person poses a risk to security of the nuclear facility.

We asked why the licensee would need discretion in this case. If a person poses a threat, why not revoke? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, replied that a licensee might want to take other actions, such as removing the person from the premises in that particular situation without permanently revoking the authorization. Of course, the regulations do not say this. The regulations say only that the licensee does not have to revoke an authorization if the licensee does not want to do so.

Before deciding whether to follow up on this point, the committee wanted to see a draft of the letter to the CNSC. Members have a copy of that draft before them this morning. It suggests that perhaps the provision in question can be revised to state that, in the circumstances described, the licensee must revoke the authorization; however, in an emergency, if the security of a facility is compromised, the licensee can suspend the authorization without having to revoke it permanently. The question for the committee this morning is whether it is satisfied with the approach taken in the draft letter. A final question was asked on whether a person whose authorization is revoked will have a hearing. The last letter from the CNSC did not deal with that question, so it is followed up in the draft as well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there comments?

Mr. Lee: Throughout the history of this issue, I truly have not understood counsel's orthodoxy and focus on the discretionary component. As far as I recall, authority is discretionary in many other federal statutes and regulatory regimes. The party who has the authority may do something, such as the minister. The statute or regulation does not usually say, ``the minister must'' do something.

What makes this item so different such that in a scenario where there might be a security threat, counsel thinks the authority ``must'' withdraw or revoke the authorization? Why is it essential to either revoke or not revoke the authorization? Many fact scenarios might be present at any one time, so it is not clear to me. Perhaps counsel is looking at the whole issue of unrestrained discretion.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is exactly the situation. The committee often tries either to have these discretions removed or to put parameters or criteria on them. The concern is that different people in the same situation not be treated differently.

In this situation, the facility has determined that this person poses a threat to security. The regulation says that the licensee can revoke authorization if it feels like it. We asked the logical question: If the person poses a risk, why not revoke that person's authorization? The answer was: It might be a temporary thing; we might want to escort them off the premises for the day and say that they can come back tomorrow.

If that is the case, then we suggest that it be provided for in the regulations so that two people who are in the identical situation will be treated in the same way, as opposed to leaving it to the facility to make that determination based on unstated considerations.

It would firm up what they say they do anyway. They say sometimes they do not revoke, but ask the person to leave. Maybe the person is not the cause of the trouble, but nevertheless, there is a risk, through no fault of their own. Therefore, they do not want to revoke the authorization, but the person cannot stay there.

That approach seems fine, but perhaps it should be stated clearly in the regulations.

Mr. Lee: In most cases, these nuclear facilities probably have protocols that allow for almost zero tolerance in various scenarios and there may be, in theory, some immediacy all the time that does not allow for the procedural exercise of discretion. Go and give someone 30 seconds of notice that they will withdraw that person's authorization. Give the person a hearing in the two minutes that follow the notice.

We are not talking about a place that is on Main Street, either. I think we are talking about being inside the boundaries of a nuclear facility where you and I cannot go, ever, without some kind of authorization.

I appreciate the point that is being made, but the issue is one of practicality in that scenario. I do not know how to reach in there and regulate it with all the niceties counsel recommends. I assume when I go into one of these places that I am subject to the managerial authority of the place at all times because of the sensitive nature of a nuclear facility.

I do not feel like moving ahead too aggressively on this item.

Mr. Bernhardt: As I said, I do not think the approach suggested was too aggressive. It asks what their views are on the possibility of revisiting the regulations. As you know, that is a fairly timid approach for this committee.

That being said, when this item was before the committee previously, members decided they wanted to see a draft of the letter because there was discussion as to whether this item should be pursued.

Mr. Lee: I will go with counsel. It is consistent with our past practice. We spotted a problem.

Mr. Masse: Send a letter off. You cannot go into a nuclear facility by wandering in off the street corner. The administration of the facility will allow people to have access to particular spots for particular reasons. If they remove someone after they have provided someone access, that ought to require a procedure, for legal and other reasons. A procedure should be in place.

It is not like someone is hanging around the nuclear facility in this section or that. They are there with a whole contingent of responsibilities already determined by the administration. The administration has a procedure to allow people into the facility. They should have a reason, pattern or extrication process, as well.

Mr. Szabo: It appears that counsel is being cautious. There are questions here. Page 3 of the letter says, we would value your views. I think this wording seeks to tidy up the matter. However, when we receive a response, I have a feeling it will take only a few moments to close the file. I suggest we issue the letter, and I look forward to closing this file soon.

Mr. Hiebert: In reviewing the letter, I am concerned that we not become stuck on the example. It is only an example. Section 21(1) says it ``may,'' for four different reasons. It is not obligated to. I encourage members to realize that this section provides discretion to the licensee, not only about whether a person is a risk being in a place they are not supposed to be, but that they could, for whatever reason, decide to allow former employees to maintain a permit or they could allow people who have completed a project or been terminated to maintain access to the facility. The section leaves broad discretion to the licensee.

I do not want to become hung up on the example. It would be useful to know why they want that discretion for all those other reasons and circumstances. I have not completed reading the letter yet, but does this letter address that notion?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think you make a good point. We will look at some of the other reasons why the section says, ``Okay, you have the discretion not to revoke the authorization.'' We simply asked why they would not revoke the authorization.

It seems to be that it is discretion, but it is a needless discretion. If the discretion is there to deal with situations where they want to do something that is not talked about in the regulations, such as de facto suspend someone's authorization for the day, that seems fine. However, one wonders why the regulations do not provide for that situation. Then they could remove this discretion, which, as you say, seems not to serve much purpose in the context.

Mr. Hiebert: Let me complete my thoughts by saying I do not understand why we do not leave it to the licensee to decide who they want to have access and who they do not. The facility is theirs; they may or may not have good reasons. It seems like we are micromanaging at a high level by deciding for them who should have access.

Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, we must remember these licensees are given licenses under a statute of Parliament. Their duties and responsibilities are set out in the law; that is, through the regulations. They are governed by the regulations, and the people who are subject to the authorizations are governed by the regulations.

From the perspective of the rule of law, if one sets out rules for people, the objective is to have rules that have set standards — objective criteria — that people can follow. If it was the case of there being generally an un-blanketed administrative discretion, Parliament could pass a law, as a British MP suggested in the 1970s, which says the government can do whatever it wants, and then everyone goes home.

There must be some parameters as to how statutory bodies exercise their discretion. It is one thing to give someone discretion. It is another to put parameters and criteria around that discretion, so people can know that they will be on a level playing field, and that two people in the same situation, whether applying for a fishing licence or working in a nuclear facility, will be treated the same way and that their rights are preserved. That principle is especially important here as they may be dealing with someone's livelihood. If a person is a subcontractor or contractor whose business depends on having this authorization, that person wants to know that, simply because that person has run afoul of the supervisor, there will not be some reason that authorization will be pulled when someone else in the same situation but with a better relationship with the supervisor does not have the authorization pulled.

The committee routinely tries to deal with those things when examining issues of this kind, and tries to have parameters put around discretion and how it will be exercised.

Mr. Hiebert: I appreciate the point. Is there an appeal process to this discretion?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is one question we asked. If one's authorization is revoked, is that person entitled to some kind of hearing? It is not necessarily a court hearing, but can one go to the licensee and say, give me a chance to explain. We have not received an answer to that question, and that is another issue we ought to follow up on.

There seems to be some indication that there was, at one point, a hearing process, at least informally. It is not certain whether the process exists anymore.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): I have one question for Mr. Bernhardt. You say that you are concerned about any sort of authority given that is a blanket authority; that we must have the parameters defined. Are subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) not the parameters of this authority?

Mr. Bernhardt: No, they are not because the section has the words ``may revoke.'' The ``licensee may revoke'' if any of these grounds arise, or the licensee may not. The grounds do not tell us much. They give rise to the circumstances in which that discretion can be exercised.

It often happens that, when regulations are drafted, it is convenient to use ``may'' instead of ``shall'' because it always leaves the door open. Sometimes we see a situation like this one where they may or may not revoke if the authorization is no longer required. If the authorization is no longer required, why on earth would they not revoke?

It seems here the discretion has been added as a kind of reflex. When we look at the circumstances, they are: if the person is no longer employed there; if the person's duties or functions have been suspended or terminated; or if there are grounds to believe the person poses a risk to security.

The reply we received was, in an emergency we might have to clear the place. Of course, in an emergency they can clear the place; they do not need the ``may'' in this provision to do that. I think the commission is mixing apples and oranges.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I think we have consensus that we will send the letter. We will read the response and possibly close the file, subject to what the letter says, but at least we will seek the information. Does that sound reasonable?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-439 — NATIONAL PARKS CAMPING REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/94-512 — NATIONAL PARKS GENERAL REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

Mr. Bernhardt: This issue is a long-lived one. Fees for the use of national parks are fixed on an administrative basis by the minister under the Parks Canada Agency Act right now. In its Report No. 74, the committee took the position that because of subsection 4(1) of the Canada National Parks Act, the imposition of fees for the access to and use of national parks under the agency act were not permitted. Subsection 4(1) states —

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I will interrupt for a second. I spoke with my joint chair, and I am concerned about proceeding with substantive matters where persons have not had a fair opportunity to read all the material. Questions are coming out, and Mr. Hiebert indicated that he had not had a chance to read the first letter fully yet. I suggest at this stage that counsel take us through all the items, because I have read all this package, and for most of the items the recommendation, I assume, is to write a letter, follow up and seek an update.

Therefore, I will ask you to go through the items with that idea, pick the ones that you want us to write updates on, and we will give those recommendations. Any item that is substantive, on which we should have a fair and full discussion, I think we should table for the next meeting.

Mr. Bernhardt: On this one then, because it is a fairly technical issue, perhaps we can put it aside. There is a lengthy note — it runs 12 pages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Let us table the technical items we need to discuss for next time. If we need to have a further meeting to make up ground later on, we can have that meeting; but I want to ensure this matter is handled properly. Go through all the ones you want to seek recommendation to write a letter to follow up on or to close — all the more minor ones.

Mr. Bernhardt: We can probably skip this one and jump to the next one, restrictive trade practices.

[Translation]

SOR/2009-95 — REGULATIONS REPEALING THE RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION RULES

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

Mr. Rousseau: The goal of SOR/2009-95 is to repeal the Restrictive Trade Practices rules that were originally passed by the commission itself.

In 1986, Parliament created the Competition Tribunal, and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission continued to exist only to solve the matters already referred to it.

In 1991, when the commission's work was completely finished and it ceased to exist, the Governor in Council, as permitted under the Competition Act, repealed the section of the Act that maintained the commission's power to make rules during the transition period. The result was the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission's power to make, and therefore to repeal, rules disappeared.

Legally, in the department's opinion, the disappearance of this enabling authority led to the commission's rules becoming null and void, although they had not been officially repealed. A valid act becomes null and void when it loses its effect as a result of an event that occurred after it was created.

To officially repeal the rules, the Governor in Council acted pursuant to section 128(1) of the Competition Act, which allows the Governor in Council to make regulations for the efficient administration of the act.

Counsel for the committee find that, from the moment that the commission's enabling authority to make rules was abolished, the rules themselves were implicitly repealed.

Not only did the Governor in Council not have the power to repeal the rules, but there was no legal reason to officially repeal them. Clearly, one cannot repeal something that has already been repealed.

That said, SOR/2009-95 will in all likelihood not cause any harm to anyone. As indicated in the accompanying regulatory impact statement, all commission proceedings have now been finally determined. If the committee is agreement, it could simply inform the department of the results of its consideration for information purposes before the matter is closed: that is, that the Governor in Council did not have the power to officially repeal the rules and that there was no need to do so.

Then, as I said, the file could simply be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are we agreed to close the file?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, are we going to send a letter to the authority informing it of our decision?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Yes.

Senator Moore: Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Bernhardt: The issue here is an illegal fee. It is an application fee for a travel document. Under the act, the only authority is to impose a fee for a document that is actually issued. This fee is non-refundable, and you have to pay it whether the document is issued or not.

There has been agreement to amend the act retroactively to allow the fee. There was some delay. The committee then asked that the provision imposing the fee be revoked immediately, and also for an assurance that the fee would not be collected in the interim.

After 17 months, a reply was received from the department. It makes no mention of the assurances requested by the committee. It states that amendments to the regulations are now being processed. Another six months has passed, and these amendments have yet to see the light of day.

Perhaps at this point, it is appropriate to write to the minister directly asking for his cooperation in resolving the matter; and perhaps, again, asking for an assurance that this fee will not be collected until it is legal.

Mr. Lee: I could take one view that the file is only two years old, but this item is clear. My bottom line is that we should give notice. Normally we do not use disallowance scenarios until well into a file, until we are sure there will not be any movement on the part of the department. In this case — and I accept that I have moved the line up a little bit — since we codified our disallowance powers, I think we have had the experience that by giving notice —

Senator Moore: We get action.

Mr. Lee: Yes, it causes the department to take the matter seriously. This fee is illegal. They have not given an assurance they will not charge it. We are the last line of defence for all citizens when it comes to the charging of illegal fees. There is no reason for us to look at that any other way. If the department chooses not to see it our way, that is cool, let them go on, but we should do our job.

It might be subject to delay if government members want to stir the pot of soup one more time. This one is so clear and easy. Given the lapse of time from when we first identified the issue and the department first accepted it, we can probably help some of them to do their job by giving notice of disallowance. That will serve to start the clock running. Someone will say, Oh, my God, someone in the department is not doing what they are supposed to do. We can help them out, not necessarily in terms of career but in terms of end game, by giving notice of disallowance.

I am prepared to move that we give notice, but other members might want to discuss it or delay to the next meeting if there is any political sensitivity.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I suggest that we write to the minister, ask for a response within 60 days and advise the minister that we will consider disallowance if we do not have a satisfactory response. For the purposes of today, based on what I said in terms of having substantive discussions, I do not want us to go to the higher level without people having had a fair opportunity to read the material.

My suggestion is to write to the minister and ask him for a response within 60 days. After that, we will consider a disallowance.

Senator Moore: I do not know why 60 days is suggested. I suggest that it be 30 days. They have had a couple of years. Someone is playing games. The minister might not know, but I am sure that he will find out quickly. I agree with 30 days.

Mr. Szabo: The minister needs to be engaged but his responsibility is not to respond but to engage those who will have to respond. That response will not take a great deal of thought because either he is on side or not on side. Let us deal with the item quickly. I would not be soft on the notice. We should advise the minister of the committee's responsibilities, the process of disallowance and the timeline. There are remedies along the line, but those are our responsibilities. Let us send a letter to the minister. He can respond to the committee that he has engaged the officials who will provide a response within a certain time frame.

Mr. Galipeau: I endorse the short leash rather than the long leash. Sixty days brings it close to June and then we are gone for the summer recess.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We will write to the minister.

Mr. Hiebert: What are the implications or consequences of a notice of disallowance?

Mr. Bernhardt: Under the Statutory Instruments Act, the committee has the power to table a report that recommends the disallowance of a particular provision or regulation.

Senator Moore: That occurs in both houses at the same time.

Mr. Bernhardt: Before doing that, the committee must give the responsible minister 30 days notice. Giving the notice does not preclude the committee from changing its mind, but there is a 30-day notice requirement. Once that report is tabled in the House, after 15 sitting days it is deemed adopted and becomes an order under the law that the regulation- maker revoke the provision that is the subject of the report. Within those 15 sitting days, there is a provision for the minister to request a one-hour debate and a vote to determine the fate of the report. The report must be adopted in both houses so it is tabled in the Senate and in the House of Commons and may be adopted either by vote or through the deeming process in either house. The notice will start the clock running whereby after 30 days have passed, if the committee so wishes it can table the disallowance report.

Mr. Hiebert: If the committee were to issue a disallowance notice, during the 30 days plus 15 days, can this committee and the relevant ministry resolve the matter and have the notice removed from tabling in the houses or is disallowance inevitable?

Mr. Bernhardt: No, it is not inevitable. Once the notice is given, the committee still has the discretion to proceed with the report or not to proceed. Obviously, once the report is tabled, it would not need to be withdrawn if the regulation-maker decides to revoke. It becomes a moot point, in a sense, whether it goes ahead. As Mr. Lee alluded to, the notice of disallowance may be a sufficient spur to those within a particular department to get their act together, if I may say.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We are not required to table the report. Rather, it is a case of not being allowed to table it unless we have given notice.

Mr. Albrecht: The letter proposed today is not the notice of disallowance but the threat of notice of disallowance.

Mr. Hiebert: We can always threaten to issue a threat.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-401 — MINORITY INVESTMENT (BANK HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2001-405 — MINORITY INVESTMENT (INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2001-480 — SUPERVISORY INFORMATION (BANK HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2001-484 — SUPERVISORY INFORMATION (INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Bernhardt: These items are together in a group because the same minor amendments for clarification purposes were promised to each one. In 2006, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions indicated that it would make these amendments through the miscellaneous amendments process, which is designed to expedite routine amendments. One year passed, and the committee was told that the amendments were being reviewed by the Department of Justice. In January 2008, the committee was told by way of update that the amendments will be divided into two parts. The minority investment regulations will still be amended under the miscellaneous process but the supervisory information amendments will be included with other amendments to those regulations that were anticipated. This approach was supposed to expedite the process even more.

Another year passed, and the status of the minority investment regulations was apparently unchanged. However, the committee was then told that work on the supervisory information regulations had stopped because the department was revisiting the decision to make the other additional amendments to which the committee's amendments had been attached. That was in February 2009. To date, the amendments remain outstanding. The amendments are minor but, nevertheless, at the least the committee is entitled to a firm deadline as to when these amendments will be made.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there comments? I heard, ``ridiculous,'' from Senator Moore.

Senator Moore: Counsel, what do you prefer that we do?

Mr. Bernhardt: At a minimum, we would write to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to express considerable frustration with the slowness of the process and ask for a firm date by which they will assure the committee that these matters will be resolved.

Senator Moore: Should we include a comment with regard to a possibility of notice?

Mr. Bernhardt: I have to check on the precise nature of the amendments. It is difficult in a case where the item sought is a minor editorial change to clarify a provision. A notice of disallowance is akin to a heavy hammer in this case.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We could bring a witness before the committee, or threaten to.

Senator Moore: Yes, the letter could suggest that if we do not have a proper response within 30 days, the OFSI can expect someone to be called before the committee. I support that.

Mr. Lee: It is not clear from the materials and I do not recall who was impacted by the regulations or how they impacted out on the streets. We would not go down the road toward a disallowance until we knew. We have to look before we leap. Most members want to see this item firmed up. It has been four years. I am sure they have many reasons why they have not made these amendments yet.

However, I think we should move towards firming up the item. The next time it comes back, a better description of the nature of the impugned regulations will allow us to make a decision about whether we will give notice.

Mr. Szabo: One issue that comes up year after year after year is the length of time it takes for correspondence to turn over. I think we should take every opportunity in our correspondence to indicate, where an unreasonable period of time has lapsed, that such a lapse is of concern to the committee.

Mr. Bernhardt, your language was appropriate. Here we have a matter that is straightforward and yet they take a year to send a letter. This time is unreasonable, and I think that our letter should be explicit about wasting everybody's time.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Moore: I want to clarify something, Mr. Chair. Counsel, you will seek a response by a set date, right? In other words, this letter will not be open-ended?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): It will be 30 days again.

C.R.C. C. 931 — HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (TOYS) REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED BY SOR/91-267

SOR/91-267 — HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (TOYS) REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

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

Mr. Bernhardt: We can deal with the toys regulations quickly. There were 16 points raised. There appear to be promises of amendments on all of them. On points 4, 8, 9 and 11, however, the undertakings are a bit uncertain. The provisions concerned in these points are vague, but the department states that further review and study are required before they can make amendments.

This being the case, it might be appropriate to ask the department whether it has now completed this review and study and when the amendments are expected to be completed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there any comments? Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/99-142 — CANADA LANDS SURVEYORS REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-1 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA LAND SURVEYORS REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, sixteen points were originally raised in connection with this file. Correspondence exchanged since the June 2, 2005 meeting focuses on five of those points. The note describes the results of that correspondence in detail.

To summarize, it can be said that, in general, amendments are promised for all the points except one. This refers to the French version where we are told that legal counsel are correct in terms of classic French, but that a number of authors accept the wording of the regulation as acceptable Quebec usage. I feel that the committee could accept this response.

As I said, in general, it is simply a question of writing back to the department to obtain clarification on how and when the amendments will be made.

If the committee is in agreement, committee counsel will simply write back to the department about the matter.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Done.

I think the next item is the same.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): I wanted to ask one question of the committee. I am looking at the dates of the correspondence. This item is from 2005. I am curious to hear from some of the veteran committee members whether there is no urgency for this particular issue as in the case of the others.

Ms. Cadman was telling me that sometimes files are 20 years old, so I understand that some are more urgent than others. I am only trying to clarify for myself the point at which an item becomes more urgent or less so.

Mr. Szabo: In my experience, the situations vary. Sometimes files take time. We had one issue that went through the courts regarding when a fee becomes a tax. Fisheries is another one. It is a battle where ministers cannot seem to put a fisheries bill on the table and through the process before there is an election. It is not possible, but they will not make the amendments to the regulations to deal with the matter.

Some files are therefore long but for good reason. We have to look at each one on its own.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): What is the issue with this one?

Mr. Szabo: I think counsel is confident that we are close.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Thank you.

Mr. Hiebert: My question is along the same lines as Senator Martin's: When was the last time this committee called a witness or issued a notice of disallowance?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We had a witness last session.

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee does not call witnesses often. It does from time to time and, usually, as Senator Moore alluded to, it is often in the case of what is seen to be an unwarranted delay in taking action. The committee often finds that process a useful one.

The last two disallowances related to fisheries regulations. In both cases, the report was referred back to the committee because the government tabled legislation in the house that would have solved the problem and would have given the power to do what the committee pointed out the government lacked the power to do at the time. Unfortunately, both those bills died on the Order Paper and the committee is still seized of the file. Before too long, that file will be back again before the committee.

Before those disallowances, the previous eight or nine disallowances went through without debate.

Mr. Hiebert: Has it been a year or two years since we have had a witness?

Mr. Bernhardt: That last one would have been in the last session.

Mr. Szabo: Yes.

Mr. Hiebert: It has been two years since we had a witness or a disallowance.

Mr. Szabo: No, we have had witnesses. We have had witnesses from Canada Post and others.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, that was probably the last witness.

Mr. Szabo: We have had a couple of ministers. It happened maybe two or three times a year.

Mr. Hiebert: Okay.

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

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I will highlight SOR/2007-23 for the next meeting. I point out that the item will be a good discussion.

However, we will now go to SOR/94-753 under Progress on the agenda.

[Translation]

SOR/94-75 — INDIAN OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS, 1995

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

Mr. Rousseau: In June 2009, the department indicated that the promised amendments would be completed in 12 to 18 months. No proposed regulations have yet been published. It would be appropriate to write to the department for information on the progress of the work.

The Joint Chair: Comments? Are all members in agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/91-687 — PROCESSED PRODUCTS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

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

Mr. Rousseau: In May 2008, the agency informed us that it anticipated completing the drafting of the proposed amendment by July 2008 at the latest. In its letter of August 17, 2009, the agency assured us that the Department of Justice and the agency itself were working intensively on the matter. The agency expressed the hope that the work could be completed as soon as possible. The promised amendment is described in the August 17, 2009 letter. One might wonder why things are taking so long.

If the amendment has still not been drafted, the agency should at least be in a position to provide a precise timeline. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write back to the agency.

The Joint Chair: Comments? Are all members in agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/95-25 — INVESTMENT CANADA REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

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

Mr. Rousseau: In this matter, the department has committed to removing from the regulations four definitions that simply refer to the definitions of the same words that Parliament has already written into the Investment Canada Act. They serve no legal purpose; moreover, section 16 of the Interpretation Act stipulates that terms used in regulations have the same meaning as in the Act under which the regulations are made.

Proposed amendments were published on July 11, 2009. The summary of the regulatory impact statement accompanying the proposal mentions that one of the goals is to repeal the four definitions in question. However, when one reads the proposed regulations themselves, one sees that only two of the four definitions are being repealed. It would be appropriate to point this out to the department so that corrections can be made. At the same time, we could ask the department to tell us when it anticipates that the proposed amendments will be adopted. Eight months have elapsed since they were published and they still have not been.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-192 — AIRPORT VEHICLE PARKING CHARGES REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

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

SOR/2009-18 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY

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

Mr. Bernhardt: Members who have been on the committee before will know it has been the practice to deal with the instruments under the headings Action Promised, Action Taken and Statutory Instruments without Comment as three groups. I can go through each group, but if members can agree to adopt the group approach, I will take that approach.

I suppose this portion is the good news portion. A total of three amendments are promised in connection with the two instruments under Action Promised. We will follow up on progress of these amendments after the meeting.

I also note that SOR/94-192 made two previously-promised amendments while SOR/2009-18 resolved eight of the committee's concerns, including replacing an ultra vires regulation.

SOR/2009-98—REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EXEMPTION LIST REGULATIONS

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

SOR/2009-148 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

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

SOR/2009-151 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE KANANASKIS FALLS AND HORSESHOE FALLS WATER POWER REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

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

SOR/2009-168 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY REGULATIONS

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

Four instruments are listed under Action Taken. Together, they make eight amendments requested by the committee. In particular, I draw members' attention to SOR/2009-168, which replaces a fee based on a variable formula. As some members will recall, the committee concluded that these types of formulas do not fix or prescribe fees. If the regulation-making powers are stated in such terms, a fee based on a variable formula — for example, future increase in the consumer price index — will be objected to by the committee.

The government generally has contested the committee's position, but a successful result was achieved in this instance. Perhaps, it may serve as something of a precedent in future.

SI/2009-11 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-12 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-14 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2009-27 — UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN TIMOR-LESTE (UNMIT) MEDAL ORDER

SI/2009-28 — UNITED NATIONS AFRICAN UNION HYBRID MISSION IN DARFUR (UNAMID) MEDAL ORDER

SI/2009-31 — ORDER AMENDING THE TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT (MANITOBA) REMISSION ORDER

SI/2009-33 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-34 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-35 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-36 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-45 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION AS DEPUTY HEAD

SI/2009-46 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE CHAIRPERSON AS THE DEPUTY HEAD FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2009-47 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER AND AMENDING THE ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-48 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER AND AMENDING THE ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-49 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER AND AMENDING THE ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2009-63 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 136 OF THE ACT

SI/2009-64 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 252 OF THE ACT

SI/2009-73 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (SALT RIVER FIRST NATION) ORDER

SI/2009-74 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY TO THE FEDERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE SOUTHERN ONTARIO REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

SI/2009-75 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO AS DEPUTY HEAD

SI/2009-76 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE FEDERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE PRESIDENT AS DEPUTY HEAD FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2009-77 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-78 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-79 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2009-80 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT TO THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

SI/2009-81 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS DEPUTY HEAD

SI/2009-82 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS A DEPARTMENT AND THE PRESIDENT AS DEPUTY HEAD FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2009-83 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2009-84 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

Finally, under Statutory Instruments without Comment, there is a list of 29 instruments that have been reviewed by committee counsel and found to comply with all the committee's criteria. Copies of these items are not generally included in the materials, but are always available at the meeting, should members have questions or wish to inspect any of them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there any other comments on any subject at present? I have consulted with counsel and the next meeting date, unless there are objections, will be Thursday, April 15, the Thursday after the break.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): What is the process if one of us wants to inspect one of the Statutory Instruments without Comment?

Mr. Bernhardt: You can ask me and I have them here.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): How would that process look if I had a question or a concern?

Mr. Bernhardt: At that point, we probably would have a preliminary discussion. We could look at it and it would come back on the agenda for next meeting. If there are no questions or comments, those files have been submitted to the committee and they are closed.

Mr. Szabo: In the package for our next meeting, will you reprint the items that we have not dealt with?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, we will reissue whatever new material there is, and redo it.

Mr. Szabo: If members do not retain their documents, is it advisable that we leave them here for disposal?

Senator Harb: Leaving them here is a good idea.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is up to members. We can do a sweep after the meeting.

Mr. Szabo: There is a pile like this one at every meeting. Your offices will be swamped.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): This is a thin pile.

Mr. Szabo: From experience, I will keep the pages from a few of the long, ongoing files on which I have written notes. For those items we have disposed of, I leave them here. That way, they will not become mixed up with the things we should look at. Members can use their discretion obviously.

Mr. Masse: It would be helpful if we had the documents formatted when they come to us to identify more clearly what is correspondence, action required, et cetera. We receive the documents in a sterile way. I suggest presenting the package more overtly in terms of the process of the meeting, and dividing it that way. It might be helpful for the new members even if it were noted on the sheets. We can identify what we need to do right away if we know what we are searching for. It is harder if we do not.

Mr. Bernhardt: We try to do that with covering notes. Usually, the notes conclude with —

Mr. Masse: We are not that complicated, though. If you could, I would like to have it on the item.

Mr. Bernhardt: We will see what we can do.

Mr. Masse: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We will adjourn.

(The committee adjourned.)

---