REGS Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of September 29, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:30 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.
Senator Bob Runciman and Ms. Françoise Boivin (Joint Chairs) in the chair.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The first item of business on the agenda is consideration of the draft budget. You have that in front of you. Are there any questions or concerns you want to raise about the draft budget?
We can look for some clarification on this. I do not think there is much of a change, if any, from the previous year. Nothing jumps out at anyone? Seeing no concerns or questions, are all in agreement with the budget as proposed?
Senator Moore: Can we have a motion, chair?
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is that the tradition? It is moved by Senator Moore.
Mr. Dionne Labelle: It is only in English?
Marcy Zlotnick, Joint Clerk of the Committee: It was in both languages.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there any other concerns? Are we all in agreement?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Carried.
This is not on the agenda list, but you all have a proposed schedule of meetings in front of you. I thought we could perhaps dispense with that before we get into the other business. Are there any concerns with respect to that proposed schedule of meetings?
Senator Braley: It does not say the time.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): It is the same time.
Senator Braley: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We are looking at five additional meetings before the break at the end of the year. Is everyone happy with that? I do not think we need a motion. Are we all in agreement?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We will now move to our review of statutory instruments.
Mr. Saxton: Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that December 15 will sometimes not happen, so that date is a maybe.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): That is a good point. Probably only the Senate will be here at that point in time.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Do not start a discussion.
SOR/97-555 — BROADCASTING DISTRIBUTION REGULATIONS
SOR/2003-29 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BROADCASTING DISTRIBUTION REGULATIONS
SOR/2003-458 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BROADCASTING DISTRIBUTION REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 1:1 )
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I am not sure what this is all about — I have a special agenda item. Is that what we are initially dealing with? These are letters to and from the chairman of the CRTC. This is a dispute about regulations that dates back to 2002.
I am advised the committee initially raised concerns about whether regulations conform with the Charter. Does someone wish to speak to that?
Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: If you like, Mr. Chairman, I can give a quick background summary.
As you mentioned, the chief issue here was the Charter. Returning members will remember that this file received considerable attention in the last Parliament. There were a number of concerns raised, but the chief one related to a provision that prohibited distribution of programming that contained any false or misleading news.
The CRTC was first asked for its views on the constitutionality of this provision back in 2001. There was an initial exchange of correspondence and then some further questions were asked. The joint chairman's March 10 letter, which as you indicated is in the materials, outlines the subsequent difficulties that the committee had in obtaining a full reply from the CRTC. The result was that the committee did not have a full response to the issue raised.
Suddenly last December, the commission informed the committee that it was publishing a notice of consultation that included draft amendments. These amendments were described as, in part, addressing the committee's concern. The committee then considered the proposed amendments and the various jurisprudence and concluded that it was satisfied that the current provision could be seen as complying with the Charter. It advised the CRTC of this and the CRTC withdrew the proposed amendments.
Some members remained concerned over certain comments that were quoted as having been made by the chair of the CRTC that could have been taken as indicating that the commission in effect intentionally avoided responding to the committee for 10 years. Those comments were quoted in the joint chair's letter and the chair of the CRTC was asked to confirm them. He was invited to provide any qualification or explanation he might wish.
In his reply, Mr. von Finckenstein notes that a number of other concerns raised by the committee have or will be addressed. Discussion on others is ongoing. He also points to litigation, as well as the need to bundle provisions together when making major revisions, all by way of explaining why concerns may remain outstanding for some time.
I would suggest that none of this really explains the failure to provide substantive responses to the issues raised. The letter refers to a continued dialogue. In fact, that dialogue largely consisted of repeated requests from the committee for replies. As for the comments questioned in the joint chair's letter, the reply expresses regret if they left an adverse impression.
Given the committee decided it was satisfied with the current provision and has made its views known about the manner in which events unfolded, I am not sure there is much more for the committee to do on this file. Some other subsidiary amendments remain outstanding and those can be followed up. Perhaps the CRTC will be more forthcoming in the future.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Does anyone wish to comment on this subject? Is further action required by the committee? Should we simply receive it? Is that the usual process?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 1B:1)
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The committee wrote to Justice Minister Nicholson in 2009 over the increase in the use of incorporation by reference in the regulations. I am told that Incorporation by reference is the act of including a second document within another document by only mentioning the second document and that it is apparently used to save space. The committee's view has been that the incorporation of external material into regulations as amended from time to time, in the absence of clear authority, should be seen to be improper and illegal. That is a quote from the committee. The Justice Minister proposed a legislative solution that would set out rules to govern the use of incorporation by reference.
Earlier this year, Minister Nicholson wrote a letter thanking the committee for its comments but, as of today, no legislation has been developed. I am advised that the committee's concern is that Parliament should not abandon the control of exercises when it decides on a case-by-case basis when incorporation by reference can take place. We have expressed concern that increasing use of incorporation by reference raises questions as to who is making the law. The Government of Ontario, in contrast, puts strict controls on incorporation by reference by saying that the incorporation applies only to the instrument in its current form at the time of enactment. In other words, incorporation by reference would not be allowed for the amendments to the referred-to instrument.
Are there comments or questions? Counsel, do you wish to comment?
Mr. Bernhardt: No. You have provided an astute summary of the issues and the history. The file is back. As you said, the committee has not heard anything since last February. We have a new Parliament so I suppose the recommendation is to look to the minister for an update as to how things are progressing.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): How is that process undertaken?
Mr. Bernhardt: It would be a short letter from the joint chairs to the minister asking for an update.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I propose that this committee ask for a clarification from the minister to see how he is addressing the problem.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I think all are in agreement and no motion is required.
Senator Moore: Is this an update with regard to where the proposed legislation is?
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Yes. Are all in agreement?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2010-282 — CREDIT ENHANCEMENT FUND USE REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 1C:1)
SOR/2010-316 — ORDER 2010-87-12-02 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST.
SOR/2010-317 — ORDER 2010-66-12-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST.
(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 1D:1)
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act requires the minister to consult with a First Nations finance authority. The introductory wording of the regulations makes no such reference, although it is required by the Justice Department's regulations manual. The department has promised not to make such an oversight in subsequent regulations and orders amending the Domestic Substances List. The Privy Council has promised to be more vigilant in the future. We have words of assurance from these folks with respect to future activities.
Is further action required on this file?
Mr. Bruinooge: I do not think we need to take further action. The department has suggested that they are accepting the point. I may have to take personal responsibility because I believe that I was parliamentary secretary at the time in the department. It is likely my own fault, so I will accept this outcome and suggest that no further action is needed.
SI/2009-102 — ORDER FIXING THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT
(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 1E:1)
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): An order was adopted October 1, 2009, to fix the date of the coming into force of An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts in connection with civil liability for oil spills. The order says the amendments set the date as ``the day that is the first day on which both of the following are enforced in Canada.'' That refers to an international convention and an international protocol. The committee has expressed the view that it believes the wording of the order makes it impossible to know when the sections come into force without knowing when the two international conventions came into force in Canada.
The committee's concern, which has been conveyed, is that when the order was adopted, the two international agreements had not been ratified in Canada and were not in force, and that it was impossible to know from the order when they would be enforced. Transport Canada believes the order provided an objective mechanism to determine with certainty when these sections would come into force. Counsel should comment on this. Obviously, they have a different interpretation than the committee has.
Jacques Rousseau, Counsel to the Committee: Mr. Chair, the committee has always made a distinction between the two mechanisms. It is a problem that we have often encountered when it was a matter of imposing rights for services obtained from the government.
There is a mechanism that is used to fix the price in the regulations or that provides for a mechanism for calculating the price when the regulation is adopted. The committee has always agreed with this way of proceeding. Since it is impossible, the committee has always said that it was a variable mechanism and that it was unacceptable. It is a way of subdelegating.
The jurisprudence quoted by the department is jurisprudence that the committee has often looked at in the many cases it has encountered. Each time, the committee determined that judicial decisions were not relevant in supporting the validity of the contested provisions. We are dealing with a similar case today, except that it applies to an area we have not previously seen.
Given how the committee handled these cases in the past, committee counsel recommends handling this file in the same way. We recommend writing to the department again in order to submit the arguments explained in detail in the note prepared for the committee and ask the department to review the matter.
Mr. Albas: Respectfully, I disagree. Looking at the arguments presented, I can understand the decision regarding Canada Post rates and linking it to CPI because that is a fixed rate, and you cannot determine what that would be. In this case, Canada was taking leadership and saying that we would be a signed participant of an important international agreement, which required at least 20 or so members for it to gain international traction.
Subsequently, by seeing this through, we showed support for an important agreement. Again, there were over 47 signatories. From what we are seeing now in other parts of the world, it is very difficult to get that kind of consensus.
I agree that if it was any case other than an international agreement, the counsel's arguments should be heard. However, on this particular case, we provided that leadership by showing that it had passed through both houses. Therefore, I suggest we leave it as it is.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): You are saying to accept Transport Canada's position?
Mr. Albas: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there any further input? We have a proposal that we let sleeping dogs lie, essentially. Do we have agreement on that?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Bernhardt: Before the committee moves on, could I get a little guidance from the committee as to exactly what the principle and distinction is that the committee is making here, for our future reference?
If I understand the decision here, it is that something that does not fix a date can be taken to fix a date if it relates to an international agreement or some convention; but that, generally speaking, fixing a date in this manner for the coming into force of some other regulation would not be permitted. If so, could I get some guidance from the committee on exactly what the distinguishing legal principle would be?
I see a factual distinction. I have difficulty enunciating for our future reference the distinction in legal principle that would be applicable here.
Mr. Masse: I appreciate the attempt, but I think we need to stick with counsel here to be consistent. Otherwise, we will set another precedent that will be very confusing. I think we need to send a letter back and follow through with this.
The other factors are things that we cannot control. What we can control is our process here and I think we need to be consistent with that.
Mr. Pacetti: The confusion was in the intervention from the first counsel; I thought we were talking about rates and now we are talking about dates. That is confusing. If it is a date, I think I would agree. I am not certain about the rates — that I am in agreement with the rate factor.
Mr. Bernhardt: More usually that is where the committee has encountered this discussion over exactly what fixing something in a regulation is. It has been commonly seen in the past when dealing with fees or rates that there would be a formula. The committee has taken the view that does not fix a rate.
Here you have the power to fix a date and you have a formula as well. The question is whether prescribing a formula that hinges on some future occurrence is fixing something. Whether it is a date or a rate, it really turns on what is required when the law says the regulation must fix something. How certain does that require that regulation to be? Can it be a formula tied to some future increase in the Consumer Price Index? Can it be a date tied to the happening of some other event in the future? Or must there be something on its face that the citizen can look at and say there is the date of coming into force or there is the amount I pay?
That is the reason for the reference to imposition of fees and things. Those are the sorts of precedents the committee has seen in the past. This is a bit new in that sense.
Mr. Rousseau: I would like to add something. When the order was adopted on October 1, we did not know when Canada would ratify the two documents: the convention and the protocol. That was done afterwards, on October 2.
If the order had been adopted on October 2, we would have known when those two documents would come into force in Canada. We could have set a date. But when the order was adopted on October 1, legally we absolutely could not say when those documents would come into force in Canada and, as a result, when the provisions specified by the order would come into force.
This is the distinction that we are suggesting the committee make in this case.
Mr. Saxton: Am I then correct in understanding that the counsel has recommended we send a letter back to the department seeking clarification?
Mr. Bernhardt: Yes. It would basically follow the lines of the note and then the reply would come back to the committee at that point.
Mr. Saxton: That sounds logical. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Am I correct in understanding that the last correspondence was in 2010?
Mr. Rousseau: Probably. One moment. Yes.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): So, the most recent correspondence dates from April 2010? I am just curious.
Mr. Rousseau: No. You will note that we received a letter from the department in 2010 and the events that followed meant that we are now at the first possible working committee meeting since that date when we can focus on the file.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Good. Does everyone agree? We will be able to draft a follow-up letter. Let us now move on to the partial corrections that have been promised.
SOR/2003-105 — SEAWAY PROPERTY REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 1F:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: There were 19 points raised initially in connection with these regulations. After the first exchange of correspondence, there were nine still in dispute. The committee instructed counsel to pursue those with the department. That was done in the November 25, 2009 letter.
Then Transport Canada agreed to make amendments to address eight of these. The only point left is number 16 in the correspondence. This concerns different conditions that can be imposed on a permission to carry out an otherwise prohibited activity, depending on how that permission is given.
In one case, an activity is required to be subject to conditions designed to mitigate or prevent the result. If the permission is given through a contract, lease or licence, those conditions can only be imposed if they are technically and economically feasible. The department explains that this is intended to be a different standard and that is what they desire. Basically the argument they are advancing hinges on contractual freedom and not placing oppressive burdens on people under contracts.
Without commenting on the merits of the particular argument, I think what is made clear is that is what the department intends. They wish this to be that way. In this case, that is a policy decision and I think the committee can accept that explanation.
There is also a subsidiary point concerning a reference to licences in section 27. I think that explanation can be taken as satisfactory as well. If the committee agrees with that, all that remains is to follow up as to when the promised amendments will be made.
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Senator Harb: I found somewhat troubling the fact that regulations are supposed to be put in place in order to clarify and implement legislation, while in this particular case, we are seeing something that is a bit wishy-washy. I do not know, but could counsel suggest some other way in order not to create a mechanism for the department to continue on this type of slippery slope?
Mr. Bernhardt: The difficulty in this case is the act clearly contemplates these sorts of distinctions when one goes back and looks at it. The committee's initial concern was that there seemed to be different requirements without any substantive difference in the circumstances other than the mechanism by which these requirements would be imposed, so they asked for a justification.
The department has provided a justification. It is clear that this is how they intend it to work. They have the authority to have it work that way, so —
Senator Harb: So they will leave it loosey-goosey.
Mr. Bernhardt: Yes. They can, and that is what they want to do. There is not a legal argument or question here. They basically said that is what we want. You are right; the committee reads it correctly. The committee reads it as we apply it and that is what we intended it to do.
Senator Harb: In your view, is there nothing else that can be done in order to have certainty?
Mr. Bernhardt: I think not in this case, partly because it is being left to individual contracts and licences, so there will be different terms. Obviously, different contracts with different people may include different terms. These things are in the nature of contracts and leases; they are not regulations. The regulations provide for those contracts and leases. It is kind of in the nature of a contract that it would have different contents depending on the individual contract.
Senator Harb: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Other comments? Is that okay?
SOR/2006-275 — SOLVENCY FUNDING RELIEF REGULATIONS
SOR/2009-182 — SOLVENCY FUNDING RELIEF REGULATIONS, 2009
(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 1G:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: I should note at the outset that the final few lines of the English translation of counsel's March 10, 2010 letter on SOR/2009-82 were omitted from the printed materials. We have circulated copies this morning. It is basically the last two sentences of the letter.
These files were grouped together because all of the issues that arose in the first file arose in the second one. The 2009 regulations basically extend the scope of the earlier regulations. The details of that are set out in the Regulatory Impact Analysis statement put in the regulations.
Additional points were raised in connection with the 2009 regulations. Fortunately, action has been promised on all of those. Using SOR/2006-275 for reference then, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has agreed to amendments on all points except those numbered 2, 4, 9 and 10.
On point 2, there was a suggested amendment. The superintendent replied that section 8(1)(g) does not need to be amended because it no longer has application. This being the case, it was suggested that the provision could simply be deleted in the course of the ongoing review of the regulations anyway. The last reply from the superintendent was that they did not intend to do this. There is no indication as to why that is. Perhaps that question could be asked.
Point 4 is not mentioned specifically in the reply, but there is an undertaking on the 2009 regulations to amend the same provision. I think it is just a matter of writing back to clarify that the same amendment will be made in each case.
On point 9, an explanation was requested as to when payment would be requested on a letter of credit that has expired. The explanation is that in that circumstance, it would technically constitute a default under the regulations. I think that can be taken as a satisfactory answer.
Finally, the last issue is point 10, which concerns the requirement that the administrator of a plan state in writing that letters of credit comply with the regulations. The purpose of this apparently is to make employers aware of the requirements of the regime. It was also stated that making a false statement would be a violation but, in fact, that is not the case. It is only a violation to make a false statement with the intent of avoiding compliance. The only question is whether an administrator making a false statement knew that it was false. Typically, you would expect him to be required to state that to the best of his knowledge, the regulations were complied with. Again, it is claimed that that is not done elsewhere in the regulations and the act but, in fact, there is no other provision in the act or regulations that requires anyone to attest to anything.
The latest response is a bit cryptic. It concludes by setting out a series of options, one of which is to do nothing, one of which is to revoke the provision, and the other of which is to change it. Those are pretty much always the three options. It concludes, ``We hope this is satisfactory.''
I am not sure what the purport of that was, so I suggest the committee might want to write back to the superintendent to ask if it has chosen one of these, if it would like the committee to choose one of these, or what the conclusion was expected to be on that last point.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Do you have a recommendation on the different options?
Mr. Bernhardt: Obviously, doing nothing will not satisfy the committee. If the provision were removed, then the committee could not object to the provision because it would not exist. Amending it as recommended would solve it as well. Either of those last two would suit the committee, I would assume.
Senator Harb: I agree with counsel; it needs to be addressed.
Mr. Wilks: It needs to be sent back for clarification. They should give us an answer and then we can make that decision. That is what I would suggest.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Other comments?
Mr. Pacetti: I would take a stance that is a little more aggressive, saying that if you do not give us a concrete answer, we will eliminate the clause.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Does everyone agree with that?
Mr. Saxton: That decision is for a later date, right?
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Yes.
SOR/2010-88 — RENEWABLE FUEL USED AS SHIPS' STORES REMISSION ORDER
(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 1H:1)
Mr. Rousseau: Madam Chair, in this case, committee counsel has raised three points regarding the wording of section 3(b) of the order. The first concerns the wording of the English version. In relying on a certain number of examples, the agency believes that it is a question of style rather than grammar. So the committee could accept the agency's response on this point.
On another point mentioned at the end of the May 28, 2010 letter, the agency promised to correct the French version.
As for the last point, the agency first agreed to make a correction and then changed its mind, as we can see if we read the letter of September 9, 2011.
In short, the problem is this: the order gives a duty remission on fuels on the condition that the allowed fuel limits, according to the French version, are met. According to the English version, the condition is that these limits are met or not exceeded.
If the limits are met, we might wonder under what circumstances they could be exceeded. No matter what, at worst the English version contains an unnecessary passage. Since the individuals covered by the order have until April 22, 2012 to invoke the remission, I would bet that this deadline will come and go before a new exchange of correspondence has a chance to resolve the matter.
When committee counsel writes to inquire about the progress on the promised amendment to correct the French version, they could, if the committee agrees, indicate that, while the committee does not agree with the agency, it has decided, under the circumstances, not to continue correspondence to determine whether the words ``or not exceeded'' need to be removed or the equivalent added to the French version of the order.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Are you going to follow up anyway? Even if you do not write, are you going to check whether they have fulfilled their obligation?
Mr. Rousseau: Whether people have fulfilled their obligation or not concerns the application of the regulations, which does not really enter into the mandate, but it is the type of provision that we can perhaps expect to see again in another remission order. As I said, at that point, maybe, given the fact that in April 2012, the remission order will no longer apply, it might be appropriate to indicate that we disagree with how they see the French version and the English version, but with a future order with the same problem, there would be nothing to prevent anyone from indicating the problem again and saying that, in a previous case, the committee did not agree with how the department, or rather the agency, interpreted the French and English versions.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: But given that you have been there for some time, you know that dates are not always something that is entirely respected and April 2012 could be April 2014. That is what I am talking about; we need to give some consideration to the speed of change.
Mr. Rousseau: In which case, you would be right. If we had to amend the order to extend the period during which people could invoke the order, it would be entirely appropriate to write to the department again and insist on an amendment or another explanation, but in any case, so far we have not heard anything about extending the application of the remission order. So, at this point people have until April 2012 to invoke it.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So, we are using their date and think that they are going to respect it, which we do not see very often. So I ask again: if it is not done by April 2012, are we going to put a little flag somewhere that will remind us to remind them that we are waiting for the change?
Mr. Rousseau: I am not sure we are talking about the same change. A change is promised for the French version. You are right, we will follow up on that — perhaps I made a mistake about the change. Yes, of course, we will follow up on the French version. As for the other, we will follow up no doubt in future orders. On that point, the chances of coming to an agreement and the problem being resolved before the deadline are slim.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I agree with you. It is just that the fixed schedules are not always respected.
Mr. Rousseau: So far, they have promised to amend the French version. We will do the follow-up. A letter will be sent immediately after the meeting, and we will ask them what is going on.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Perhaps we could include a short paragraph saying to inform us of the other eventual change.
Mr. Rousseau: Actually, we are proposing to the committee to simply mention that it does not agree with how they see things on that point.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is good. Thank you.
Senator Braley: What does it mean — is it just the words?
Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, drafting.
Senator Braley: They have a date that they have to meet? We got sidetracked with the date.
Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, there is a cut-off date for making application. In effect, eventually there is a sunset date for this order. Obviously that will have some bearing in some cases for the committee on how it wishes to approach the department in terms of insisting on an amendment.
If the order is going to expire before the amendment is made, there is not much point in insisting on the amendment. On the other hand, sometimes these things get extended. Suddenly there is an amendment at the last minute made that says we will give you another five years to make the application. Then there may be a reason to make the amendment.
Senator Braley: What do you want to do?
Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, it would be just a situation of writing a routine letter back to the department making that point.
Senator Braley: Then do it.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Is that okay with everyone? Just a routine letter?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Excellent. Thank you. We are now moving on to the next point, ``Part action taken.''
SOR/2002-36 — CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-268 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 1I:1)
Mr. Rousseau: Before we talk about the contents of this file, I would like to specify that although the correspondence from the Farm Products Council of Canada refers to several texts, the only one that concerns the committee's work today is the Canadian Chicken Marketing Quota Regulations. The council sometimes took the opportunity to provide information, not only on these regulations, but also on other files discussed in correspondence.
With regard to SOR/2002-36, five points were raised in the letter of December 22, 2008, sent by committee counsel. As we can see from reading SOR/2010-268, corrections were made to the wording of the regulations, for points 3, 4 and 5.
Point one of the letter covers the repetition in the regulations of five definitions that are already present in the proclamation for the chicken farmers of Canada pursuant to which the regulations were adopted. This point was the subject of correspondence in several files concerning the regulations made under that proclamation. It was also discussed at a meeting with the organizations involved. This point has still not been resolved. The response received so far is that the definitions are repeated that way for practical reasons.
For information purposes, the committee's position is that the regulations are not an information bulletin and that the content must be limited to what should be justified from a legal standpoint for inclusion. Also, under the Interpretation Act, the words used in the regulations have the same meaning as in the proclamation.
This point was not addressed in the letter sent by the Farm Products Council of Canada on October 21, 2010. We could even wonder if the council forgot that we are still waiting for an answer, based on the meeting held with the organizations involved in this matter, including the council. It would be worth asking the council to provide an answer.
Lastly, an amendment was promised for point 2 to harmonize the French and English versions regarding the definition of the word ``commercialisation'' in the regulations. Since this word is already included and defined in the proclamation and it would therefore be appropriate to eliminate it in the regulations, harmonizing the two versions will not fix things. Committee counsel recommends writing to the council again about the two points that have not yet been resolved.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Comments?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Number 7, ``Response satisfactory.'' The residential detectors should not take very long.
SOR/2009-193 — RESIDENTIAL DETECTORS REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 1J:1)
Mr. Rousseau: The note that was prepared for the committee summarizes the point covered in the correspondence. The regulations adopted by the Governor in Council under the Hazardous Products Act require that the products in question meet a Canadian General Standards Board standard, as amended from time to time. The committee finds that in one of these many cases, ambulatory incorporation by reference was used illegally, a problem that was discussed earlier this morning. The department, however, has always maintained that the Hazardous Products Act authorizes ambulatory incorporation by reference and that these Regulations were validly enacted.
The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act received Royal Assent on December 15, 2010. It came into force on June 20, 2011. For the purposes of these regulations, it replaced the Hazardous Products Act. Subsection 37(6) of the new act stipulates that documents may be incorporated by reference as amended from time to time.
Since June 20, 2011, there was no longer any doubt that ambulatory incorporation by reference was permitted. This reflects the committee's request that Parliament provide clear legislative authority to this effect.
However, since these regulations were, in the committee's opinion, made illegally, and since the new act does not retroactively validate the regulations, the committee could insist that the regulations be re-enacted under the new legislative authority. The department would likely respond that it still believes that the former Hazardous Products Act authorized ambulatory incorporation by reference and that subsection 37(6) was included in the new act for greater certainty.
The committee could consider the inclusion in the new act of an enabling provision expressly authorizing ambulatory incorporation by reference as a satisfactory outcome. If this is the case, no other action is necessary and the file can be closed.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Comments? Are you leaning toward closing the file? Because there are two options here. Are we closing it?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): There are plenty of others. We are moving on to the next point. I think we have another ``satisfactory (?),'' which was the one on the Regulations Amending the Designated Public Office Holder Designations.
SOR/2010-192 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DESIGNATED PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDER REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 1K:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: This is another file that the committee gave considerable attention to in the previous Parliament. The question here, as the note explains, is whether staff of the Leader of the Opposition in each house can be said to be on the staff of a member of the Senate or the House of Commons for the purpose of the definition of ``public office- holder'' in the Lobbying Act and whether they can be therefore designated by regulation.
Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition in the house will be a member of that house. There are, however, differences between the staff of the leader as leader and the staff of a member per se in terms of their status, their tenure and the provisions under which they are employed in the first place.
It is possible, then, to conclude that only those employed by the member in the member's capacity as an individual member can be considered to be on the staff of that member for purposes of the Lobbying Act. That was put to Treasury Board. Their February 7 reply describes that conclusion as being plausible but suggests that the more persuasive view is that people appointed to the staff of the Leader of the Opposition are indeed staff of a member of the Senate or of the House of Commons and, therefore, can be made designated public office-holders.
As the note explains, many of the arguments advanced in the reply from Treasury Board may not be entirely convincing. What is true, however, is that staff of the leaders of the opposition are situated similarly to many staffs that do consist of designated public office-holders. In the words of the Treasury Board reply, they are more likely to have access to information and a network of government political contacts than the staff of ordinary members of Parliament would have; and the staff of ordinary members of Parliament can indeed be designated.
In other words, if the staff of an ordinary opposition member can be designated public office-holders, then why cannot staff in the office of the Leader of the Opposition? Obviously, there is a considerable degree of overlap and interchange between the two offices but, nevertheless, they are staffed differently. They have different functions and, although they serve the same individual, they serve that individual in his or her different capacities. It is really a case of looking at, in one sense, the very strict wording of the act and, in the other sense, what seems clearly to be the purpose of the act and then following through on that purpose. The note concludes that at the end of the day, the question really comes down to a matter of judgment. As Treasury Board recognizes, either conclusion is, in its words, plausible.
There is a significant potential impact on people who are designated public office-holders, so I suppose one suggestion might be to recommend that the Lobbying Act be amended to clarify the point to make it express. That is a question for members and whether they feel that there is sufficient need to clarify or whether they are satisfied with the current act. I can come up with no explanation, other than the strict wording of the act, and no principle as to why those people would have been intended to be excluded by Parliament. At worst, there is an unintended gap in the act. The question is whether the committee feels that it should be clarified.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I was there during the previous discussions on this, and I do not think we are necessarily any further ahead.
Based on all the correspondence in the file, right now it would be the leader of the opposition and the staff of the leader of the opposition. The staff of regular members or senators who do not have the same responsibilities as a minister will not be designated personnel.
The staff of the opposition leader is the only area that remains unclear. This applies to both Chambers, and I wonder what it is that remains unclear and whether the Lobbying Act would clarify it.
Mr. Bernhardt: The proposal would be that the amendment be simply for the purpose of clarification.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It would mean that they would identify specifically the title of those who are covered and those who are not covered. Right now, we have uncertainty.
Mr. Rousseau: That is one way of doing it.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: This has a significant effect on the employees who are working. I think that my colleagues who have staff want to know what restrictions would be put on the employees, given how long we are preventing people from working based on the work they did here.
In my opinion, the period was prolonged illegally, and I think that we cannot prevent someone from working for five years. The private sector generally limits this period to one year. And as far as I am concerned, it is important to have a decision that determines who is covered and who is not.
The employee needs to be fully informed. And if we cannot inform the employee specifically, I hope that my colleagues understand that it may mean a lot of headaches for employees who came here to work, when they leave.
Mr. Pacetti: I am approaching this issue the same way as Senator Hervieux-Payette. I was not here during the last session, but I think that she clarified the reason why we should have a clear answer.
Mr. Saxton: A mandatory review of the Lobbying Act is taking place in any case. I recommend that we allow the mandatory review to take place to hopefully clear this up.
Mr. Bernhardt: Will that go to a committee? One option would be for the chair simply to write a letter to the chair of the committee undertaking that review to say that this is something the committee may want to consider in the course of its review.
Mr. Saxton: It is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Mr. Bernhardt: If that is the way members want to proceed, it is one option.
Mr. Masse: Is the mandatory review happening now or is it in three to five years?
Mr. Saxton: It has already been three years — more than that, actually, because I believe it was 2007. I understand that the review will take place within the next 12 months.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Is there something preventing us from doing so? It seems to me that the last correspondence addressed to us was from Michel Doré. Can we send something back? I truly want to believe that the revision is going to be done, but one does not preclude the other, in my opinion.
Mr. Bernhardt: We could copy her in on the letter.
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2003-219 — PASSENGER INFORMATION (CUSTOMS) REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 1L:1)
Mr. Rousseau: In the letter of January 24, 2011, committee counsel asked the agency if it still expected that the promised amendments to the French version would be made this year.
In the letter of February 23, 2011, the agency wrote that it had decided to make the promised amendment to address the committee's concerns, separately from the other amendments it is working on. The agency closed in saying that no other delay is anticipated as far as the promised amendment is concerned. The correction should therefore have been made this year, but it still has not been done.
It would be appropriate for counsel to write to the agency to find out where things stand.
SOR/2005-39 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE VETERANS HEALTH CARE REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 1M:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: The question on this file was the extension of certain benefits through the definition of primary caregiver to people to whom those benefits could not be extended under the terms of the act. An undertaking has been given to amend the act. The department describes this as clarifying and strengthening the enabling authority. The most recent update indicated that the amendments were expected to proceed in 2011. They have yet to be introduced, so perhaps a follow-up letter asking to current status is in order.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): That seems clear to me. Good.
Mr. Pacetti: Can we not ask that they provide us with an answer by a certain date?
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): That seems normal to us.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): This is government.
Mr. Pacetti: That is why we are here.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): The fact remains that our colleague Mr. Pacetti is asking a relevant question: is there a normal timeframe? Because several of us are new, and it always surprises me to see how there is so much time between the most recent correspondence and the meeting.
Mr. Masse: We started putting dates on letters, like 30 days or 60 days, depending upon the circumstance. We have promised action on this file but nothing is taking place. I think that 30 days is plenty of time for them to respond. This should be in the works and, if it is not, it would indicate that we are not on the priority list.
Mr. Bernhardt: I should add for new members that internally at our office, the standard fallback is 120 days. If the committee gives no specific instruction, we work on the time line of four months. The committee may choose to shorten or extend the time line in a particular case. In the absence of any time instruction, that is what we have used in the past.
Mr. Saxton: Why do we not compromise with 60 days?
Mr. Masse: I disagree. It is a veterans issue and they are promising action. I do not know why they would need another 30 days for promised action. They have had plenty of time.
Mr. Larose: My only concern is that, if the previous practice was 120 days because we were not saying the number of days, perhaps we should take it into account and eventually get to 30 days. But this would be radical since a previous practice was 120 days. It is dropping, perhaps 45 days or 60 days, but it is getting short. I, too, would like a quick response, but there were previous practices.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Still, maybe counsel could write in the letter that this is becoming urgent for the committee. So, it seems to us that 30 days would be required to obtain a response on what they had promised to do. Knowing full well that, obviously, no one is going to lose their head if the 30 days expire.
Mr. Albas: I would add that you said earlier the progress is good. So far, we seem to have gotten a good response from them. To simply go after those that are doing the will of the committee and recognizing our concerns is counterproductive. It is the committee's decision so I will go with either/or, but I suggest we keep that in mind.
Mr. Masse: I just want clarification. We set the timelines here in terms of when action takes place, not them; and 120 days is very generous in terms of correspondence, especially given that we are opening another session coming up.
This is a veterans issue and they are supposed to be taking action. There has been plenty of discourse previous to this to get to the point where we are today so I do not find it difficult for them to have to respond in 30 days. That is just my opinion. I will settle for something different but once again, we are the ones that determine the corresponding date and decision, not them.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There is often more than one department and more than one stakeholder when changes are involved. It is not necessarily the Department of Veterans Affairs that might create a delay. The regulations need to cover a long road, and if they get held up along the way, even Veterans Affairs has to give others a little shove.
When there are major changes to the regulations, it takes longer. I do not think they can proceed in less than 120 days, given the number of players, the committees and everyone who has to go over them.
Our counsel do not know what the process is if people want to make amendments to the substance of the regulations. If it is just a matter of translating, there is really no need for excessive delays. But 30 days in this case is definitely a reasonable wish. I agree with Mr. Saxton's comments. We have to be nice because Transport Canada is one of our clients. I do not know if there is some kind of virus in that department, but it has been more than 10 years since I have been on the committee and I have noticed that the Transport Canada regulations have to be revised on an ongoing basis by our committee. This is just a bit of background for our new colleagues to show them that the 30-day request is quite reasonable.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I want to draw attention to the fact that you did say this was progress. If this is the way we are going to talk about progress, I would like to see a motion on the floor. Let us get this resolved and move on to the next item, if that is possible.
Senator Moore: I agree with Senator Runciman that we should be moving. On the first item, we received a letter on March 7, so almost seven months ago and there is nothing happening. The next one says November of 2010, so 10 or 11 months are gone by and nothing is happening.
I think we should be sending a letter requesting a reply within 30 days. If they want to go through an explanation as to why it has been waltzed through different departments or translation, that is fine, but let us get a letter back telling us where we are. Therefore, I move that, chair.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): The motion is on the floor.
Mr. Saxton: Can you read that motion?
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): That a follow-up letter be sent to the Department of Veterans Affairs, asking for a reply within 30 days. We can write that very nicely. The 30-day request is not outrageous either. They will have 30 days to provide an explanation.
Mr. Bernhardt: If members are happy with that, then that is what we will do.
Mr. Saxton: This is strictly to request an update? We are not asking them to take any action?
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): That is it. ``Where are you on the great progress you were announcing?''
Senator Moore: They had promised action and we want to know what it is. I think the same thing should apply to the other item under ``Progress,'' SOR/2003-219.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): It is strictly an update and a 30-day answer to the update.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Does that work for everyone?
Mr. Pacetti: As a friendly amendment, I would say we would like a response in 30 days — not action and not an update, but a response. If the response is an action, that is fine, or if the response is an update, that is fine, but we would like a response in 30 days. We will be meeting every 30 days so at least the file will be up to date and we will have it fresh in our heads.
SOR/2006-77 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI AND VII)
(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 1N:1)
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): I suppose it would be the same.
Mr. Rousseau: The file has to do with amendments that were supposed to be made to the drafting of the regulations. The letter of February 10, 2011 from the department indicates that they were supposed to be passed this year. The amendments have not been made yet. Counsel should find out what progress has been made since the letter of last February. It is really a routine matter.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Are they getting 30 days as well?
Mr. Rousseau: The amendment has been promised for this year. We are going to write them after the meeting and ask what the status is. We are either going to get a reply or the deadline will expire in January, at the end of the year. If we come back before the committee with the file and the deadline has passed with no progress, the committee might start stirring things up.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Are we still talking about dogs, since the dates are from 2010? It seems to me that it has been years. The public consultation process was something — We are talking about SOR/2002-164, correct?
Mr. Rousseau: No.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is the first one I had.
Mr. Rousseau: That is the next file. We are dealing with aviation.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am sorry.
Mr. Rousseau: We are talking about amendments that strictly have to do with the drafting.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Is that okay? We are on the same page. Excellent.
Senator Moore: Will this letter again request a response within 30 days?
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): No, because it is a regulation that is supposed to be done by the end of 2011. We are already in October. The next step, if they have not completed it by December, will be to say you have not done what you were supposed to do.
SOR/2002-164 — NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION ANIMAL REGULATIONS
(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 1O:1)
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): Number 9. Now we are talking about dogs.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I do not understand how we can only have letters since 2009. I thought it went way back.
Mr. Bernhardt: As you can imagine, these regulations deal with animal control on the commission's lands. There are a number of issues.
Amendments have been under development for some time. In the past, the committee has been told that at least two drafts were prepared and have gone back and forth with the Department of Justice. In the meantime, legislation amending the National Capital Act was tabled. The commission then indicated that it was looking into the potential impact of those changes to the act before proceeding with the regulations. Unfortunately, the bill has twice died on the Order Paper.
In January, the commission indicated it was prepared to move ahead with amending the regulations as soon as is practicable. As I say, that was back in January. The amendments have not yet been made so, once again, an update and a forecast time frame should be sought from the NCC.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there comments?
Senator Braley: Yes. Do it.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Anyone else? Are we in agreement?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
SOR/2002-145 — MANNER OF DISPOSAL OF DETAINED, SEIZED OR FORFEITED GOODS REGULATIONS (PRECLEARANCE ACT)
(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 1P:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: This is a rather odd file. Issues were first raised in 2004. In a nutshell, the concerns arose from the fact that the regulations bear little resemblance and little relationship to the provisions of the Preclearance Act. There are provisions that appear to require a preclearance officer to transfer goods other than those that can be dealt with under the act; provisions that authorize forfeiture of goods in circumstances other than those set out in the act; provisions that can only operate in conjunction with other regulations that have never been made; and provisions that apparently contradict the act.
Strangest of all, despite the title of the regulations and the recital of an enabling authority relating to the subject of the regulations, the regulations do not provide at all for the manner of disposing of detained, seized or forfeited goods. They simply state that certain goods are to be transferred to a Canadian officer for disposal. Other questions arose that the committee was looking for background information on concerning the provisions in the act.
The result of all of this was that amendments to the regulations and the act were promised. A progress report was sought in December 2009, particularly with regard to amendments to the act because, presumably, those amendments would have to pass before the regulations would be changed.
Three subsequent follow-up requests and 13 months later, the department advised in January that a review of the entire act had been under way for some time and that at the heart of that review are the problems identified by this committee. The department also advised that it would be in touch ``as soon as we proceed forward,'' in their words. Nothing has been heard since. I suppose it is time to follow up on that to see where things are going.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): It has been eight months since the last correspondence.
Mr. Bernhardt: I presume they have not proceeded forward since they promised to be in touch when they did proceed.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): That was a year ago, which is a long time.
Senator Harb: In the response from the department, there are a few cryptic sentences. In particular, in the second paragraph, as counsel has indicated, they say that at the heart of this review are the seven issues raised in the committee's letter of October 2004. There are also a number of other issues linked to current policy and practice challenges under this legislation and feedback from the field. These circumstances are key elements of the review. Not only did they say that they would get back to the committee but also that they have a lot of other challenges and are waiting to find out from the field. It would be interesting to find out if they could share with the committee what those challenges were in the field, when and if this feedback is coming and whether or not the legislation is before Parliament or about to go before Parliament for review. The mandate is to review the act after five years, and these issues have been around since before 2004, I presume. That is a long time in the scheme of things. I would increase the temperature a bit on this file because it looks like they are crying for help. They may need some help. If so, it would be timely to send a comprehensive note to them to put the points on the line, not only if but specifically when this will take place.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I was noting in counsel's December letter to the ministry that you are diplomatic in saying ``valuing your advice.'' I wonder if we could not indicate that the committee has expressed concern and —
Mr. Masse: We no longer value their advice.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Perhaps we could request a more definitive explanation of why delays have occurred. Is everyone okay with that?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Senator Moore: I agree with that, but are we just going to let them get back to us as they proceed? Do we not want an answer within a set time period? This has been waltzed around for a while.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We can say that we expect a response in a timely manner, and we can look at it at our next meeting. If they have not responded by that time, we can go back at them.
Senator Moore: Thank you.
SI/2009-110 — RIGHT OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE FEES REMISSION ORDER
(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 1Q:1)
SI/2010-67 — ORDER AWARDING THE OPERATIONAL SERVICE MEDAL WITH THE HAITI RIBBON
(For text of document, see Appendix R, p. 1R:1)
SI/2010-70 — ORDER AWARDING THE OPERATIONAL SERVICE MEDAL WITH THE EXPEDITION RIBBON
(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 1S:1)
SOR/2009-18 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 1T:1)
SOR/2011-6 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SAMPLING AND MARKING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS REGULATIONS (2011)
(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 1U:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: At times in the past, the committee has adopted a practice of taking all the instruments under Action Promised, Action Taken and Statutory Instruments Without Comment simply as three groups and dealing with them in that way. Certainly, we are prepared to go through each one individually. However, if members want to adopt that past practice, we can do so.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we agreed to deal with it as a package?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Bernhardt: Under Action Promised, five instruments are listed. They promise five specific amendments to address concerns raised. There is also agreement to remove certain inconsistencies throughout the Health of Animals Regulations. I should say for new members that progress for items under this heading is always followed up after the meeting as a matter of course. SOR/2011-6 also made three corrections requested by the committee.
NOTICE AMENDING THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY FEES NOTICE
(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 1V:1)
NOTICE AMENDING THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY FEES NOTICE
(For text of documents, see Appendix W, p. 1W:1)
SI/2010-64 — SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL BAR ORDER
(For text of documents, see Appendix X, p. 1X:1)
SI/2010-85 — NON-ARTICLE 5 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO) MEDAL FOR NATO LOGISTICAL SUPPORT TO THE AFRICAN UNION MISSION IN SUDAN (AMIS) ORDER
(For text of documents, see Appendix Y, p. 1Y:1 )
SOR/2010-195 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
(For text of document, see Appendix Z, p. 1Z:1)
SOR/2011-41— REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BENZENE IN GASOLINE REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
(For text of document, see Appendix AA, p. 1AA:1)
Mr. Bernhardt: We have six instruments under Action Taken. In total, 51 amendments promised to the committee have been made, so those files are finished and completed in each case.
In connection with SI/ 2010-64 and SI/ 2010-85, the errors occurred simply in the title of the instruments given when they were published in the Canada Gazette. Those were corrected simply by way of an erratum. They did not need formal amendments to the act. Those files can be closed.
SI/2010-86 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 1, 2011 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN ACTS IN RELATION TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
SI/2011-5 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 31, 2011 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THAT ACT COMES INTO FORCE
SOR/2009-204 — THE MICRONUTRIENT INITIATIVE DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS
SOR/2009-223 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ELIGIBLE FINANCIAL CONTRACT GENERAL RULES (COMPANIES' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT) (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
SOR/2010-35 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVINCIAL LAWS REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-175 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-188 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-246 — ORDER 2010-87-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST
SOR/2010-247 — ORDER 2010-87-05-02 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST
SOR/2010-254 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS FISCAL AND STATISTICAL MANAGEMENT ACT
SOR/2010-255 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (CAMPBELL RIVER)
SOR/2010-256 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-258 — ORDER 2010-87-11-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST
SOR/2010-260 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986
SOR/2010-266 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN HATCHING EGG PRODUCERS QUOTA REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-269 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-274 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-279 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS AND BOOSTER SEATS SAFETY REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-280 — ORDER AMENDING THE ONTARIO HOG CHARGES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT) ORDER
SOR/2010-283 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING PROGRAMS ACT
SOR/2010-285 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
SOR/2010-295 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS
SOR/2010-306 — ORDER AMENDING THE PARDON SERVICES FEES ORDER
SOR/2010-308 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER
SOR/2010-309 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990
SOR/2010-311 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER
SOR/2010-312 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES
SOR/2010-313 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES
SOR/2010-314 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986
SOR/2010-315 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER
SOR/2011-3 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS
SOR/2011-4 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS
SOR/2011-8 — ORDER AMENDING SHCEDULE 1 TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT
SOR/2011-131 — CCOFTA RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS
SOR/2011-149 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS
SOR/2011-150 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS
Mr. Bernhardt: Under Statutory Instruments Without Comment, 36 instruments have been reviewed by counsel and have been found to comply with all of the committee's criteria. I should say that no materials on those accompany the agenda. They are simply listed pro forma for members. However, we always bring copies of them to the meeting for any member who has a question, wishes to examine one or wishes a copy of one on the list. We have them available.
The Joint Chair (Ms. Boivin): To be clear, you have reviewed these regulations and have found them to be fine.
Mr. Bernhardt: They seem perfect.
The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there anything members wish to raise at this time? Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)