---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 19 - Evidence - February 14, 2013

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, February 14, 2013

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. Chris Charlton (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Good morning everyone. Happy Valentine's Day. Thanks for all the chocolate. Senator Runciman is upset you did not bring him any, but I thank you for everything you gave me.

I see a number of new faces around the table. Let us take a couple of seconds for the new members to introduce themselves.

Ms. Davidson: I am Pat Davidson. I am substituting for Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Strahl: I am Mark Strahl, Member of Parliament for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon in British Columbia. I am a permanent member here now.

Ms. Young: I am Wai Young for Vancouver South, and I am also a permanent member here.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Welcome aboard. This is the most exciting committee you will have sat on.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I would like to make a comment. We received a memorandum and I would just like to thank the members and the staff of the committee. You do a remarkable job. We are the watchdogs of democracy, and we must not forget that. At times, you call us about details of files that have been dragging on for a long time. You tell us when ministers do not comply with the legislation or apply regulations. My thanks to you for your work.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Thank you very much. What a great way to start this committee.

SOR/2011-281 Ð REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1618 — FOOD ADDITIVE)

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 19A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): This item under "New Instrument" on our agenda is about declaring a conflict of interest and deals with my favourite subject: Food additive caramel in chocolate-flavoured cream cheese spreads.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: These amendments permit the use of caramel in chocolate- flavoured cream cheese spread. This was previously permitted pursuant to an interim marketing authorization. These authorizations were issued pursuant to section 30.2 of the Food and Drugs Act, and they allowed a food, including an additive, that did not comply with the regulations to be marketed while an amendment to permit the sale is being processed.

An authorization had effect beginning on the day it was published in the Canada Gazette and continued until the day on which a notice cancelling the authorization was published, the day on which the regulation that had the same effect as the authorization came into force or, at the latest, two years after the day on which the authorization was published. In this instance, the interim marketing authorization was published on February 14, 2009, so it expired on February 14, 2011. The amendment to the regulations, however, did not come into force until December 2, 2011. That means that, in this case, this particular use of caramel was illegal between February 14 and December 2, 2011.

We found a similar situation with respect to other amendments to the Food and Drug Regulations permitting the use of food additives, including preservatives, stabilizers, bleaching agents, enzymes and microorganisms that had been the subject of interim marketing authorizations.

It would appear that Health Canada had a practice of simply ignoring the unlawful use of food additives where an interim marketing authorization expired but where it was expected that eventually the regulations would be amended to allow the use. This was confirmed in the department's August letter. It describes the situation as "regrettable" and explains that the number of regulations under development put a strain on its resources.

An authorization could be in effect for two years. It seems that should have been ample time to put a regulation in place. More fundamentally, the Food and Drug Regulations are part of the law of Canada, and those responsible for enforcing and administering the law are bound by it in the same way as those subject to the law. I suggest it is not open to the bureaucracy to pick and choose the legal requirements it decides it will enforce. That a practice such as this was considered acceptable over a considerable period of time seems somewhat disquieting. This seems to be a blatant example of an administrative practice being used to trump the law.

That being said, as a result of recent amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, interim marketing authorizations will no longer be issued. Under Bill C-38, the authority for interim authorizations has been replaced with a broader power to issue marketing authorizations of indefinite duration. These new authorizations take the form of exemptions that the minister grants for any or all requirements set out in the Food and Drugs Act or the regulations and could be subject to any conditions the minister considers appropriate, and can apply to one producer or the entire industry. They can incorporate by reference, as amended from time to time, material from any source, including documents created by the minister or Health Canada. In effect, marketing authorizations can now be used as a substitute for the act and regulations.

It is also the case that there are interim authorizations that are still in effect and use of them has in a sense been grandfathered; they will continue until they are either replaced, revoked or two years lapses. That being the case, the committee might want to consider whether it wishes to seek an assurance from Health Canada that these authorizations will not be simply ignored if and when the two years run out.

Mr. Saxton: As much as I like caramel and chocolate, I think it is important that IMAs are respected — at least those still out there. Therefore, I concur with Mr. Bernhardt that we should write back and ask for assurances that the remaining IMAs will be respected.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any other comments? Is there consensus?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-631 Ð VINYL CHLORIDE RELEASE REGULATIONS, 1992

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 19B:1)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "Reply Unsatisfactory," this next issue has been around since 2001. The regulations are again on hold, although they were promised for last summer. The reason given is that they are part of new regulatory reform measures.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is it in a nutshell, Madam Chair. I would add that draft amendments were pre-published in the Canada Gazette in 2004, so at that stage the amendments had actually been prepared and were put out for notice and comment. In fact, they have never been made.

When the committee last considered this file, it wished to inform the department that it fully expected the latest deadline to be met and that if any further delays were due to other amendments in the same regulations, the committee would expect to see those resolving its concerns proceed independently.

As a final comment, the department is relying on new Treasury Board regulatory reform measures. I find it difficult to believe, however, that whatever regulatory reform measures Treasury Board has in mind, they were ever intended to derail amendments promised 13 years ago and apparently drafted in 2004.

Mr. Saxton: Should we write back and ask for a timeline?

Mr. Bernhardt: It is certainly an option to ask for a firm timeline and reiterate that the committee would expect that this time the timeline will be met.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there other comments?

Senator Moore: We will write back and ask for a timeline. Will we ask for a response within 30 days? It has been going on and they may take another five or six months to write back to you. I think we should put a timeline on that as well.

Mr. Masse: Should we also note that we would have to take further action if they are not in compliance? I think that would be a better indicator, too. A timeline specifically, and subsequently the committee will have to take further action if they do not achieve that. They clearly understand the rules and understand that they are ignoring them.

Mr. Saxton: It is basically a threat, but I do not know if we need to get to that stage right now.

Mr. Bernhardt: If the committee wants to refer to further steps, perhaps it should clearly indicate what those steps might be. One option would be to suggest that if that timeline is not met, the committee would expect officials to come into explain why it was not met.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is everyone comfortable with that?

Senator Moore: A shot across the bow might get them to move.

Mr. Saxton: If it is not met, then we expect officials to come in and explain why it was not met.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I notice a certain repetition of behaviour. This is not just about officials here; the minister is not applying the legislation as he should. We are the ones who make the laws because we are the country's law-making body.

If we realize that a certain behaviour is being repeated, not only in one department but in several, we should ask a professional to suggest what we have to do more effectively. Because if we just keep on asking for details, they will not care in the slightest, and the failure to comply with the law will go on.

I am asking you to suggest to us more effective ways of doing business because some of these files have been dragging on for years.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee has the tools that any parliamentary committee has. It can call witnesses or report to the houses, which it has done in the case of a long, outstanding delay. It can recommend disallowance to the houses, ultimately. I believe most of the concerns we are dealing with here are drafting matters.

There is one more substantive issue concerning vicarious liability imposed on plant owners for violations of people who operate the plants. The committee was of the view that in some cases that might be unfair. Otherwise, the committee is dealing with drafting issues, and in the past that has had coloured how the committee chooses to proceed. The committee has always been reluctant to propose disallowance of a provision simply because it is awkwardly worded. However, that is always something that is, in theory, open to the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I was talking in general, not just about this case. The first case seemed blatant to me and I said to myself that we are not showing any respect for our work as parliamentarians. We must be more effective with our requests for answers, not just dates. Dates will not change anything; things can drag on for years. That is what concerns me. This is our democracy. Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I take your word that you were not wanting that to apply to this particular discussion. I have a proposal on the floor that we write to officials and suggest that if we do not hear a response in a timely way, we will ask them to come visit us. Is that agreed?

Mr. Saxton: Let us get clarification. Will we ask them to come and speak to us and get back to us on the timeline. Is it the timeline we are waiting for? Which timeline are we talking about?

Mr. Bernhardt: I am assuming it is the latter, the timeline to complete the act.

Mr. Saxton: That is my understanding, too.

Senator Moore: That is where I think we are at. We would like to have reply within 30 days if we could.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-229 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART IV)

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 19C:1)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Three out of the four issues on this agenda item that have been raised with the department have now been resolved, but the fourth is outstanding and deals with our efforts to eliminate unwarranted discretionary power.

[Translation]

Jacques Rousseau, Legal Counsel to the Committee: Exactly, Madam Chair. The matters that have not been able to be resolved by correspondence up to now are perhaps a question of understanding between ourselves and the department. The problem is that getting pilot licences is dependent on the results of medical examinations conducted by doctors. For example, someone under 40 years of age holding an airline pilot licence must pass the examination every 12 months, which corresponds to the period for which his medical certificate is valid.

But the legislation gives the minister the discretionary power to set a shorter period. The wording of the regulation is "if a physician. . .recommends the shorter validity period in their medical report."

Under the regulations, therefore, physicians may make a recommendation in their medical report if the results of the examination warrant it. The physician makes the recommendation, but the decision is made by the minister. Clearly, if the results do warrant, it seems normal for the minister to follow the physician's recommendation and to specify a shorter period.

But, in the way that the regulations are currently drafted, the minister is not required to follow the physician's recommendation even if the results of the examination warrant it.

The regulations simply say that the minister may specify a shorter period if the physician recommends one in a report. So he could decline to specify one even if the physician makes a recommendation to that effect and if the results of the examination warrant it.

The proposed amendment, suggested in the note prepared for the committee, seeks to require the minister, after having examined the results of the medical examination, to specify a shorter period if he sees that the results warrant it. The proposal in no way reduces the minister's power to not specify a shorter period if he considers, after having examined the results, that they do not warrant it.

However, the department is of the opinion that the present wording of the regulation must be kept. In its view, the minister's discretionary power, as it presently exists, is necessary in order to allow the minister to not always be bound by a doctor's recommendation.

The department's position is probably explained by a lack of understanding of the result that the suggested amendment would have. I repeat that, if the amendment suggested in the note, or a similar amendment, were adopted, the minister would lose only the discretionary power to not specify a shorter validity period in the licence if the results of a medical examination show that such a measure is warranted.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel could write back to the department in order to explain once more the point in question and the objective of the proposed amendment.

[English]

Senator Braley: Could the minister recommend a shorter period of time? Let us say the doctor said six months and he only signed it for three. You need clarity in your recommendation to write back and find out. If he automatically puts six months on everyone, it is not an option or a question. The two bodies have to get clarity on what the interpretation of the wording is and ensure the wording adjusts. I would write back and get clarity on the wording between the two of you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-390 — FORM OF PROXY (BANKS AND BANK HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 19D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "Reply Unsatisfactory (?)" on our agenda, in this case, the amendments to regulations have been deferred again. As a result, we have a situation where some regulations refer to provisions that since have been replaced by the Canada Business Corporations Acts Regulations, 2001.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct.

On a procedural note, members may have noticed that we have a document in a somewhat different format. This is the first example in the materials of the new format for providing a summary of the file to members. Members may recall that back in the fall the steering committee was asked to consider suggestions made by members. It was thought that something along these lines might make the material easier to digest. It is a work-in-progress, but over the next couple of meetings, members will see more and more files with this kind of covering document. We are beginning to implement the suggestion in a gradual way.

Going back to this regulation, it is simply a question of updating references. There are a number of references to the Canada Business Corporations Acts Regulations that have been long repealed and replaced. The amendments were put on hold pending final resolution of the National Securities Regulator file. When this file was last before the committee, members had reason to believe that was finished and that the National Securities Regulator proposal was dead. That seems not to be the case and is being used as the reason to defer making the amendments.

As the committee wrote last time, that is likely to postpone these for a considerable period of time moving forward and perhaps even indefinitely. The committee was not inclined last time to wait patiently and had indicated to the department that it would prefer to see these go ahead as independent amendments should the National Securities Regulator file take some years to resolve. One year later, it seems that things have not moved at all, so the ball is back in the committee's court.

Mr. Saxton: We do not know when the National Securities Regulator file will be resolved. If we put this off until that happens, we do not know where we will be. I agree with counsel that we should recommend that these amendments be dealt with separately and independently.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Perhaps this is an instance where stronger language would be appropriate. For some time they have been using this as their justification for not moving forward on the amendments. Most of us are aware that getting a national regulator is not, as Mr. Saxton suggested, in the near term. Perhaps counsel could suggest what the stronger language might be, because they have been through this many more times. It should indicate the frustration of the committee with respect to continuing to use this as justification for inaction.

Mr. Bernhardt: May I quote that? That is the language we will use.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank counsel for the new summary documents, which are very helpful. They make the rest of the material more accessible, although I know it means extra work for counsel. I thank you and your colleagues.

Mr. Bernhardt: We will reach the point where all but the most straightforward, simple files will have this kind of document.

SOR/2010-140 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix E, p. 19E:1. )

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next we have Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada National Parks Act. Parks Canada is postponing regulatory amendments because we are in times of "fiscal restraint."

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: To summarize the problems that the committee has noted, problems are caused by three provisions of the Water and Sewer Regulations and three provisions of National Parks General Regulations.

In the first case, the committee held that the discretionary power of the park superintendent should be better defined. In the second case, the committee's comments focused first on the need to amend two provisions giving the park superintendent discretionary powers and second on the need to correct the English version of another provision.

The promised amendments will — or are at least supposed to — correct that. One of those amendments involves rescinding a provision that the committee feels is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In its letter of June 1, 2012, the agency indicated that it was going to postpone, in the words of its vice-president, the introduction of the promised amendments because of a lack of resources. Then, in its letter of July 20, 2012, the agency indicates that it plans to proceed with them with a miscellaneous amendments regulation, the development of which will begin in the spring of 2013.

In a telephone conversation on October 26, 2012, the agency also stated specifically that it will be proceeding with them in the 2013-14 year.

The question is whether the committee considers the timeline that the agency suggests to be reasonable. If the committee is of the opinion that it is, counsel will write to the agency to see if things are proceeding as planned.

[English]

Senator Braley: They will do one or the other. A verbal conversation is probably not good enough at this time. If they had intended to deliver everything in the spring of 2013, I would wait to see if that occurs. However, since you have had a telephone call indicating something different, I would write back asking for the date, whether they expect to conclude this at end of this spring and, if not, what is the expected date because we have to take the appropriate action.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there comments?

Senator Moore: Ask them if not, why not?

Mr. Masse: If there are no alternatives to reprioritize amending certain regulations according to current resources, they are basically saying that the department is not allocated the budget necessary for them to follow the law. That is a serious problem and it sets precedent as well.

I would expect at least a response in terms of how much money they are talking about and the specifics such that they are not following the law. That is the choice they are making here. They are saying that they have not been allocated the proper resources. They are making other budgetary decisions, and because they do not have this fiscal capacity, they will not follow the law. What other ones will they choose? What other departments will choose that? It is significant.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there other comments?

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I think it is important for you to give us an idea of what we can do, because the comment my colleague has just made is true; we are already seeing ministers abuse their discretionary power. Now they are starting to talk about budget problems; what will they be saying next?

I think we cannot just stop at asking for a date. I would like our experts to tell us what we have to do to get things to change.

Mr. Rousseau: At this stage, I think it would be good to write back to the department to say how dissatisfied the committee is with the course of events so far.

Now, as in the previous files, if the committee finds that stronger action should be taken, that can be done too, of course. But, given the suggestions that have been made and that are going to be considered when the letter is written, the department is going to have to provide more justification. At that stage, with the knowledge of the department's response, the committee will be able to decide whether the justifications are satisfactory, and so on.

Perhaps at this stage, asking for the justifications we have discussed is action in the good sense.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is there agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-175 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REPORTING OF IMPORTED GOODS REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix F, p. 19F:1. )

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "Part Action Taken," we have regulations dealing with the reporting of imported goods. At issue is a set of regulations that includes the term "good character."

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Madam Chair, for this provision, the committee has pointed out that there is a need to define the words "good character" for the purposes of the regulations.

In the letter received on September 17, 2012, the agency points out that it is preparing amendments, the effect of which will be to delete these words and replace them with program-specific eligibility criteria.

The agency also indicates that the words are used in six other regulations and that, in each case, they will be replaced by eligibility criteria that are tailored to each problem. We can assume that those criteria will delineate the discretionary power that the minister holds. The agency expects the amendments to be done by next August. Counsel will therefore continue to monitor the file and to keep the committee apprised of any developments.

[English]

Mr. Anders: Since they have made most of the amendments and we are waiting on that, I would suggest we monitor the file until August 2013.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are committee members comfortable with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): All right, we will monitor until August.

SOR/2005-383 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ACCOUNTING FOR IMPORTED GOODS AND PAYMENTS OF DUTIES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 19G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item No. 7 deals with Regulations Amending the Accounting for Imported Goods and Payments of Duties Regulations. Consultations are continuing but are expected to end shortly.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: This is much the same file as the one that the committee has just examined. Once again, the question is about the words "good character." I repeat that the letter of September 17, 2012 specifically mentions that SOR/ 2005-383, the regulations we are examining at the moment, is one of the files for which the promised changes will be made by next August.

Once again, counsel will monitor the file and keep the committee apprised of any developments.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is everybody comfortable with that recommendation?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I have a question. You talk about using the term "good character." Now they are replacing it with "program-specific eligibility criteria." Is that detailed criteria or is it simply the wording that is reflected in what you have said here, namely, "program-specific eligibility"? That leaves that latitude available for whatever the case might be.

Mr. Bernhardt: I guess we will see when the amendments are made. The committee could ask if it wishes specifics. We are assuming you will see some actual factors that will be taken into account as opposed to saying, for example, if you wish a licence to be a customs broker, it has to be decided if you are of "good character" — whatever that means.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): My question was around how complex this really is. They are simply removing "good character" and replacing it with a more specific definition.

Mr. Bernhardt: They may well refer to criminal convictions for certain criminal offences — fraud and so forth.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Two or three years is not unreasonable, then.

Senator Braley: Are these two files the same? Can they be merged instead of dealing with them separately?

Mr. Bernhardt: They have now given a list of six or seven regulations, and they will simply make the same changes to each of those.

Senator Braley: They appear to be one case rather than separate ones.

Mr. Bernhardt: We will put them all in the same basket.

SOR/95-500 — POWER LINE CROSSING REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-39 — NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD PROCESSING PLANT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 19H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "Progress" on our agenda are a number of items where progress is being reported. The first deals with Power Line Crossing Regulations. We are being informed that work is ongoing.

Mr. Bernhardt: Since the agenda was put together, I can advise on further progress. The amendments to the National Energy Board Processing Plant Regulations were published yesterday in the Canada Gazette, so they have now been made. That file can be closed.

On the Power Line Crossing Regulations, one amendment was made in December. The other issue on that file was an open incorporation by reference, so the resolution of that will follow if and when Bill S-12 passes. On these files, it is a matter of monitoring what happens with that bill.

As I say, SOR/2003-39 can be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-190 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 19I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to the next item, Regulations Amending the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations, progress is being reported with respect to the Health of Animal Regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The amendments promised deal with a drafting error and the deletion of provisions specifying penalties for having contravened the conditions of a permit, a situation that the committee is very familiar with.

In this case, the two regulations are basically useless because Parliament has already provided, in section 65(1) of the Health of Animals Act, that a contravention of any provision of the Act, and therefore of a permit issued under the Act, is liable for the penalties set out in the Act.

However, before deleting the sections in question, the agency wanted to wait for Parliament to make a correction that is intended to clarify the French version of section 65(1) of the Act. That amendment was made by Parliament when section 513 of Bill C-38 was passed in June 2012. It came into effect on January 1, 2013.

In the letter of July 26, 2012, the agency confirms its intention to proceed with the amendments to the regulations. It would be appropriate for counsel to write to the agency to determine the status of the matter.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is everyone fine with the letter going out?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SORS/2006-102 — TRAFFIC ON THE LAND SIDE OF AIRPORTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 19J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): This next item might be under a heading called "Gradual Progress." Transport Canada indicated the regulations would be in the Canada Gazette in the fall of 2012 and that has been delayed. They are indicating the spring of this year.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: I might add that, in the previous letters, the department also mentioned amending the act itself. The information available to the committee was that the legislative amendment would be tabled in Parliament to coincide with the publication of the proposed amendments to the regulations.

So, in the correspondence that the committee has before it today, there is no specific mention of the amendment to the Act. So it would be appropriate to ask the department if it still feels that the two amendments are going to coincide.

The last letter from the department was received four months ago. Clearly, it is appropriate for counsel to write back to the department to seek information on the progress made since and to ask if they still anticipate that the two amendments will be brought forward this spring.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Do members agree with that course of action?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-261 — CRIBS, CRADLES AND BASSINETS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 19K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): On this item, Health Canada advises that these regulations are taking longer than expected. They are saying this is a complex and technical piece of business, but expect the regulations to be published in the Canada Gazette in the fall of this year.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The only thing that I could add is that, when the committee examined the regulations, it noticed that section 43, dealing with the need to keep certain documents and to present them to an inspector on demand was, in the committee's opinion, illegal.

It had all been passed under the old Act, the Hazardous Products Act. That act contained no enabling legislation allowing regulatory provisions of that kind.

Since then, Parliament passed the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. In that Act, there clearly is a provision that specifically authorizes a section like section 43.

I have a suggestion for when we write back to enquire about the progress made with the amendments we are dealing with in the correspondence that the committee is examining today. As the committee suggested at the outset, this is to ensure that, when those amendments are made, section 43 will also be passed, given that it now has an enabling provision. In that way, the section will be protected from any possible challenge as to its legality.

Once again, counsel could write to the department about this matter.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY FEES NOTICES, AS AMENDED TO MARCH 30, 2002

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 19L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Progress (?), this next item deals with a number of amendments made last year. Three items were removed from the package of amendments and held for further analysis, and the CFIA says they will be included in a regulatory amendment package to be published sometime in 2014.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The question mark here relates simply to the fact that a 2012 forecast has been pushed back two years to 2014.

I should add that originally the committee had 33 issues. Three amendments were removed, but there are only two issues left. On the provisions requiring payment of a fee plus related costs, the committee took the view that requiring the payment of related costs did not fix the amount of the fee, which is what the act requires.

The other issue concerned certain items that allowed National Defence to grant exemptions from the fees for foreign military vessels and aircraft. There is nothing in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act that would give National Defence the power to grant exemptions from fees. In both cases, the agency has agreed to take those items out and the committee is now waiting for that.

As I say, the forecast now is for 2014. If the committee is willing to accept that timeline, it might be worth looking for confirmation from the agency that they are not charging these related costs and are not allowing National Defence to grant exemptions. However, I rather doubt there were many exemptions being granted in the first place.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: So, if I understand correctly, you feel that progress really is being made. That being the case, I think your position is correct. We will monitor the file and ask for the clarifications.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I think counsel was also suggesting that we ask a couple of questions with respect to how they are dealing with this in the interim.

Mr. Bernhardt: Since they agreed to take it out, it might be worth asking for an assurance that they are not collecting money in the interim pursuant to that.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Does the committee have any say in the setting of fees? Because there has been correspondence. It is interesting; this is a big set of regulations. We see it all happening, but how are the fees set?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: In this case the fees are not fixed in regulation; they are fixed administratively. However, the act says that when they are fixed, they are referred to this committee as if they were a regulation. Therefore, the committee gets its mandate to review them through the act.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: And they have to cover the costs, correct?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: We certainly do not look at whether a fee is reasonable or whether it is a proper amount. We do not have the expertise. We look at whether it is the sort of the fee authorized by the enabling statute.

The issue that might occasionally arise is whether a fee at some point becomes a tax if huge profits are being collected. However, aside from that, the amount of the fee is not an issue for the committee, given its mandate.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Last question: what do the Department of Defence and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have in common?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: That was the very question for the committee. It seemed odd.

Again, we are dealing here with food and animal inspection services. If your herd needs the veterinarian certificate before you can export the animals, you pay a fee for the inspection. You may have to pay a fee for the certificate. Then we have a provision that says National Defence can exempt a military aircraft from having to pay those fees. I am not sure how often the CFIA would charge a fee for a veterinary inspection in relation to a military aircraft or a warship. If the ship's cat needed something — I do not know.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Perhaps for sniffer dogs?

[English]

C.R.C. C. 1238 — NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REINDEER REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 19M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 13 is next on our agenda. If I am reading this correctly, this matter has been before the committee for 30 years. Is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: Strictly speaking, 29 years and 11 months. Obviously this is one of the committee's oldest files and I suppose it does beg a bit of history.

The committee's concerns relate to the need to limit a number of discretions the minister has in relation to the conditions of a licence, suspending licences, authorizing off-reserve grazing, and specifying circumstances when the transfer of reindeer within the territory would be authorized.

There was one question of legality. That was resolved in 2002 when the committee tabled a disallowance report which was adopted, resolving that issue.

Back in 2006, the committee was concerned with the lack of progress and had witnesses in from the department. At that time, they explained that the actual boundaries of the reindeer reserve were uncertain, that a new survey was required and that there would likely be a need to revise certain land claims agreements once the boundary questions were worked out. That would have to be done before the new regulations could be made. That took some time.

By 2008, the survey was completed. They hoped to make the regulations in 2009, and then difficulties were encountered with replacing the order-in-council that set out the boundary description for the reserve, which took until 2010.

In August 2010, proposed new regulations were published for consultation. Their enactment would have been the final step.

As a result of the publication for consultation, comments were apparently received from the territorial government and, in addition, Treasury Board is requiring further consultations.

It is now forecast that the new regulations will be submitted for approval by the Governor-in-Council this spring. Hopefully that will turn out to be the case, and the next time the committee sees the file will be to close it.

Mr. Anders: I suggest we write back and ask for an update.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-164 — NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION ANIMAL REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 19N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): This item has only been before us for nine years, and it deals with the National Capital Commission Animal Regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: Here again the two regulations are together because similar drafting issues arise in both, so many of the amendments made to the animal regulations will have to be made to the traffic regulations as well.

There are three additional issues on the animal regulations. These relate to vicarious liability imposed through an extended definition of who is the keeper of an animal. There is also an area of concern relating to designation of off- leash areas, which is solely at the discretion of the commission. Finally, there is a problem with the definition of "domestic animal," which is broad and calls into question the validity of the regulations.

The committee has been waiting for amendments that were promised in 2004. There had been a forecast timeline for the summer of 2012. However, back in November the commission indicated that while it had not met the summer 2012 deadline, things were moving forward. It was preparing to commence consultations. There is no forecast anymore, however, for when it is expected this will all be wrapped up. That might be something the committee wishes to ask for.

Mr. Strahl: This would usually fall under a municipal or regional district in British Columbia. Had they followed a similar timeline, it would have taken three councils' worth of time to get new regulations. I would ask that we write back and ask for an updated timeline.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I gather this is flowing from legislation. It seems to me that things such as the designation of an off-leash area would fall more appropriately under policy development by the NCC rather than a regulatory approach. Maybe they are constrained by legislation with respect to that, but can we not speak to those kinds of issues on occasion as well?

Mr. Bernhardt: It is possible. I believe that at one time there was a review of the National Capital Act. There was reference to possible amendments to that act having an impact on how they would proceed with these regulations. I am not sure anything came of that, but we could ask again about revisiting this matter.

As Mr. Strahl mentioned, it is an odd duck in the sense that they are very much municipal matters, but because they are on National Capital Commission property, it suddenly becomes a creature of federal legislation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The recommendation by Mr. Strahl is to write back.

Mr. Strahl: To ask for an updated timeline.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-32 — CONTROLLED GOODS REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix O, p. 19O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Action Promised," this agenda item has been before the committee since 2005. The Defence Production Act establishes a registration system to regulate access to certain goods and the committee expressed a concern related to three points.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: As you said, Mr. Chair, the correspondence that has gone back and forth since the last meeting, has dealt with three points. The points on which the committee wanted to pursue the correspondence dealt with the validity of four provisions of the regulations and secondly, the matter of discretionary power.

On those two points, the committee has previously reported to Parliament in connection with other files and quite comparable provisions. One report was in 1997, another was in 2001.

When we wrote to the department on April 30, 2012, we provided them with a copy of those reports.

In that letter of April 30, 2012, according to the committee's wishes, counsel offered the department the opportunity to meet with the officials in charge of the file. That meeting took place on June 26, 2012 and went very well. By that, I mean that the representatives of the department concurred with the committee on all points and said that they were ready to prepare the necessary amendments. That was something we had not heard before.

The department agreed to a timeline of 24 to 30 months to make the amendments. On September 4, 2012, we wrote to the department to get a written confirmation of everything. The reply is contained in the letter of October 5, 2012. In it, the department indicates, and I quote:

As noted, the Department will be reviewing its position on the three points raised by the Committee in its April 30, 2012 correspondence. They will be included in the overall regulatory review undertaken by the Controlled Goods Program. . .

From reading that letter, are we to understand that the department is confirming that the amendments will be made? If so, it could have been clearer. Counsel could therefore write to the department in an attempt to get an unequivocal response.

The department also writes that the review in question should end in April 2015. Thirty-four months will elapse between June 2012 and April 2015. That is a little longer than the timeline mentioned at the meeting but it could be a lot longer if the "overall regulatory review," as the department calls it, does not take into account the time required to publish the proposed regulations and have them passed.

Here again, it would be appropriate to seek a clearer answer.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write to the department to make sure that there is a clear understanding of the commitments the department has made.

[English]

Mr. Saxton: In the meeting, which you said went very well, the department agreed to the three amendments, but in their subsequent letter they said they were reviewing it. They were strong in the meeting but soft afterward. We need clarification. You should write back, seek clarification and get a firm commitment on their part to make those amendments.

Senator Moore: Why wait another two plus years? I do not understand this. If they have agreed to it, why is it not done within 30 days? Why will it take another two years plus?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The department will probably tell you that it needs to find a budget in order to draft the amendments. Rather than making a series of amendments now and then making more after the overall regulatory review, the department prefers to do everything at once. So it would prefer to make the amendments that it seems to have promised to the committee at the same time as the ones that will be made after the review.

Essentially, the department will certainly mention the budget required to draft regulations. It needs a budget, drafting regulations costs money. So they are trying to rationalize everything.

[English]

Senator Moore: It costs money to draft regulations; do you mean for a lawyer to sit down and take a couple of hours' time? This would not take long to do because they know what will be in it and they have agreed to it. It is a matter of two hour's work.

Mr. Bernhardt: They have to expect a bill from the Department of Justice for the lawyer's time and services.

Senator Moore: It cannot be much. It is not a deal breaker given that it is only a couple of hours of work. I will do it for half the fee.

Mr. Bernhardt: I do not want to cast aspersions on any particular department, but when the response pertains to budgetary constraint, it really translates as there are other things they would rather do.

Senator Moore: The law has to be the primary concern. It is the whole framework within which all of these things function, so it has to be their first priority in establishing where they spend their money, and it is not a lot. It is truly terrible. Tell Canadians this and they would ask, "What are you guys doing up there?"

Mr. Saxton: I recommend we write back and get confirmation that they are doing more than reviewing their position and that they are agreeing to the amendments with a firm confirmation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-109 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD REGULATIONS, 2001

(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 19P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We will move on to Item No. 16 on our agenda, under "Action Promised." This amends 21 provisions of the regulations as requested by the committee. There is a minor matter in the French version, which counsel pointed out, and the board says it will address that issue in "due course."

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: I would just like to add that, once again, as we prepared for this meeting, we saw that the promised amendment has been made, as the committee will see when you examine SOR/2012-305. The amendment was passed on December 17, 2012.

So, once again, the file can be closed.

[English]

SOR/2011-217 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARKS GENERAL REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix Q, p. 19Q:1. )

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 17 relates to amendments that address the committee's concerns, but a review identified additional concerns that centre around the use of subjective language that confers discretion.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The committee suggested reformulating the provisions in question so that the director's decision is made based on an objective criterion, contrary to the present situation where the criterion is subjective.

The agency had committed, and I quote once more, "to take the committee's suggestions into account." At the meeting of May 10, 2012, the committee expressed the desire to receive confirmation that this meant that the amendments would definitely be made. In the letter of July 20, 2012, the agency confirms this and states that the amendments will be made as part of a miscellaneous amendments regulation, the development of which will begin this spring.

Counsel will follow those developments in the usual manner and will keep the committee informed of the progress made.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): All right, no further action is required.

Senator Moore: Will we not write them and confirm that we can expect this action to happen this spring? Will we wait to see if they do it? It has been since July that we communicated.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: We could very well write to them to ask whether things are on track, if the committee so wishes. So if they still plan to Ð

[English]

Senator Moore: Should they not know that we expect them to keep their word to do this in that time period?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): They made the commitment. If they do not meet the commitment, I think you are right.

Senator Moore: You want to wait and see? All right.

SOR/2006-327 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2006-4 (TEXTILES AND APPAREL)

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 19R:1.)

SOR/2012-259 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF (HARMONIZED SYSTEM CONVERSION, 2012-2)

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 19S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Aside from the two items under "Action Taken," there is nothing further that we need to discuss other than to indicate that you all have a proposed schedule of meetings in front of you.

Mr. Masse: I would like to have counsel come back with a report to us about how many departments, generally speaking, have outstanding issues. We are hearing that budgetary constraints are coming back. That is not something we heard in the past. We are getting it in writing right now, so I would like to get an idea of those numbers. If different departments choose to do other things and ignore old legislation, we need to get a grip on that sooner rather than later. Therefore, I would like to see a report come back to us about budgetary constraints and departments putting off regulatory matters.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Would that be a problem for you, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: No. I would just ask which departments Mr. Masse is thinking of.

Mr. Masse: Just in general.

Mr. Bernhardt: We can comb through the files and see who is saying that.

Mr. Saxton: If counsel comes back and tells us verbally at the next meeting, that would be fine. I would not recommend that counsel draft a full report. Tell us verbally what is going on, and that should be sufficient.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I have a comment on all the issues that we have discussed today and it is along the same lines as Mr. Masse's observation. Today, we are sort of getting the idea that regulations cost money. People are complaining, the companies are complaining that regulations are expensive. We are seeing that it costs the government money too.

I thought that Bill S-12 — whichever one we talked about, or perhaps the incorporation by reference, because we talked about it twice — it would solve some problems. I am not sure if it can solve everything, but we must not let everything get away from us. This might lighten the regulatory process. Compliance with the legislation is a must, but sometimes wording issues perhaps cost money for no reason. That is just a comment.

[English]

Mr. Saxton: I should point out to the committee that the government has launched the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan. A one-for-one rule in that plan that should reduce the burden of red tape on businesses as well.

Senator Braley: I would like you to consider something in relation to the agenda. Could we put Item No. 1 at the top of the packages? I had them mixed up. I spent 25 minutes reading the numbers and putting them back in order so I could deal with them. It just ties it to the agenda and makes it easy to deal with rather than looking for SOR/2011-281. Put them back to Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It is a minor thing and makes it easier to handle. It is only for consideration.

Mr. Masse: I would prefer to see a report, but it is fine if it is oral. It will be on the record.

Here is what I am concerned about: We already have a truckload of excuses used for why departments cannot act on laws that have been passed by Parliament, and it takes years to get fixed. This is a newer one we are seeing. It might have existed before my time, but in the 10 years I have been here, I have not seen this overt excuse used like this.

My concern is whether this will become a trend. If it becomes a trend, we will need to identify it because we will have to deal with it. That is what I am looking for. If we do not deal with it seriously, we will expose ourselves to another set of excuses to not actually enact legislation that has been passed.

That is my concern in general. I prefer written reports, but oral is fine with me. It does not make a difference.

Mr. Strahl: Forgive me, as a new member, for seeking some clarification.

We reviewed a number of items today and we heard that excuse once. We heard the excuse, if you want to call it that, that they do not have enough money to enact the regulation. I do not know if I would call it a pattern yet.

We want to be vigilant about noticing whether that becomes something we see more and more as more regulations come before us. However, I do not know if we want to go looking for this problem. I think it will come to us as we review these files.

That is my understanding of it, anyways. If we flag them as they come up, I think that is sufficient for me.

Mr. Saxton: Further to that comment, I have been on the committee for four years. We have reviewed hundreds of files and I have never heard that excuse before; this is the first time I have heard it.

I do not know if counsel's time is well spent going back and looking for something that is not there, unless he knows off the top of his head that this is the first time he has seen it. Maybe we should discuss it right now.

Counsel, is this the first time you have seen it?

Mr. Bernhardt: I can give you a first impression off the top of my head: Yes, we have seen a little more of this lately. In the longer term, I think it is somewhat cyclical. My experience has been that whenever the public service is in a situation of restraint — and this is not the first period where restraint has been imposed on the public service — this is the kind of reason or justification that bubbles to the surface.

I have no idea whether that is legitimate in every case or if it is just a handy excuse that someone is latching onto. We are sometimes left with the suspicion that when priorities and resources are used as the excuse for delaying something, it is simply because the department does not want to make it a priority. Again, I am not in those departments dealing with how they are meeting on each file. That is a bit of speculation.

Yes, we have seen a spate of it lately, but it is not the first time. It is the first time in the last few years, but maybe I am showing my age. I do have a sense of déjà vu — let me put it that way — when I see that excuse come up again. Maybe it is legitimate, but I do not know.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: We are talking about the budget. There is something that concerns me the most. It is in the first documents that we talked about, in paragraphs 5 and 6 where it says that it is a fundamental principle that administrative policies cannot be used to change the law or to avoid the requirements of the law. Such a blatant example of an administrative practice being used to trump the law has seldom been encountered by the committee.

Since I have been on this committee for a year only, I am wondering about something. I sometimes hear that some departments do not comply with the spirit of the law. So would it be possible for you to bring us a list of those departments at a future meeting? I am talking about the departments where there are more problems or where problems recur. We cannot blame everyone in the world, but in some departments, this happens more often. I would like to have those documents. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee went through that sort of an exercise a couple of years ago, I believe.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): No, just last year.

Mr. Bernhardt: The situation really has not changed radically since that point. At the request of the committee, we conducted meetings with several of the departments and reported back. I can certainly send you a copy of the documents from that. The situation does not change that radically; the bureaucracy does not move that quickly.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I do not want to get stuck in a rut here with respect to the issue that Mr. Masse raised. I wonder if we cannot leave it in the sense that counsel can take a look back and report verbally if he sees a concern, and we will continue to monitor it.

SOR/2012-162 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES

SOR/2012-163 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MANITOBA SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-164 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 3 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

SOR/2012-166 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (SYRIA) REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-168 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (OPASKWAYAK CREE NATION)

SOR/2012-169 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2012-170 — ORDER ESTABLISHING A LIST OF FOREIGN STATE SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM

SOR/2012-171 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-172 — ORDER 2012-87-08-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2012-173 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986

SOR/2012-174 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986

SOR/2012-176 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT (MDPV)

SOR/2012-177 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (SCHEDULE TO PART J — MDPV)

SOR/2012-182 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-183 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS RESPECTING PRESCRIBED BRANDS OF MANUFACTURED TOBACCO AND PRESCRIBED CIGARETTES

SOR/2012-184 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS RELIEVING SPECIAL DUTY ON CERTAIN TOBACCO PRODUCTS

SOR/2012-185 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES FISHERY REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-186 — ORDER ADDING TOXIC SUBSTANCES TO SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

SOR/2012-187 — ORDER ADDING TOXIC SUBSTANCES TO SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1999

SOR/2012-189 — ORDER ADDING A TOXIC SUBSTANCE TO SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

SOR/2012-192 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2012-193 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-195 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN FORCES MEMBERS AND VETERANS RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPENSATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-198 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONTRAVENTIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-199 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 2 TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, NO. 2012-2 (SIX MANITOBA BANDS)

SOR/2012-200 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 2 TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, NO. 2012-3 (NEKANEET)

SOR/2012-201 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE POTABLE WATER REGULATIONS FOR COMMON CARRIERS

SOR/2012-202 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES THAT MAY BE USED AS ANTICAKING AGENTS

SOR/2012-217 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT

SOR/2012-218 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-219 — ORDER ADDING TOXIC SUBSTANCES TO SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

SOR/2012-220 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CANADA EVIDENCE ACT

SOR/2012-235 — ORDER ADDING TOXIC SUBSTANCES TO SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I do want to put on the record that there are 33 items listed on our agenda today under the heading "Statutory Instruments Without Comment."

No one has any concerns, I gather, with respect to the proposed schedule of meetings. Does it present any problems for anyone? Is there anything further before we adjourn?

(The committee adjourned.)

---