Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 20 - Evidence - February 28, 2013

OTTAWA, Thursday, February 28, 2013

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:33 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator Bob Runciman and Ms. Chris Charlton (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Your agendas show consideration of draft budget as our first item on the agenda. However, I just want to mention to members that Mr. Bernhardt is here. He rushed back from his vacation. If you recall, Mr. Masse made a request at the last meeting, which was agreed to, with respect to doing some research related to correspondence that the committee receives with justifications for delays and so on, pointed at budget constraints. Mr. Masse indicated a concern with respect to how often, how frequently that was occurring.

That report has been prepared, but I am advised that Mr. Masse will not be with us today. Mr. Bernhardt is prepared to go through it, but if members are in agreement it might be more appropriate if we wanted until the next meeting when Mr. Masse is present. Do you all agree with that?

Mr. Saxton: This is a verbal report we are talking about?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are fine with delaying it until Mr. Masse is here?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The first item on the agenda in front of you is the application for budget authorization for fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. It is indicated that the $10,000 is divided — I gather as a traditional historical division between the House of Commons and the Senate — as 70/30 ratio. Does anyone have any questions or concerns related to the proposed budget in front of you?

Mr. Saxton: The ratio is based on the makeup of the membership of the committee; is that correct?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Yes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): As members of the house know, we are responsible for 70 per cent of the budget. As operating dollars, we get $3,500 twice a year without going to the liaison committee. That totals $7,000. That should be more than enough for us to cover our share of the expenditures. Usually we only spend about $4,100.

I want to make you aware that in this year's budget request we are within those operating dollar parameters. We will not be asking for additional dollars. If something exceptional happens, like we need to hear witnesses that we are not anticipating right now, we can always put in supplementary requests at a later date. This is just so you know where our share of the money is coming from.

Mr. Saxton: How does this compare to last year's budget?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The same.

Mr. Saxton: It is the same, okay.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there anything else?

Does this committee or representatives of the committee ever travel?

Jacques Rousseau, Counsel to the Committee: The last time was 2009. Before that, it was 1999.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I think it is time.

Mr. Saxton: I was here in 2009. I do not remember travelling anywhere.

Mr. Rousseau: Both times it was a trip to Australia.

[Translation]

It was very limited last time. Very few members went on the trip.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we all in agreement that the budget be adopted as presented?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-348 — ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PENSION CONTINUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/95-571 — ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/98-531 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 20A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We will move on to our review of statutory instruments. Under ``Letters to and from Ministers'' are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Regulations and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, in this file, the amendments were promised more than ten years ago. The problems are minor except in one case where the committee feels that the way in which the regulations stipulate that overpayments may be recovered is unlawful. In January 2012, the RCMP indicated that, having dealt with other priorities, the committee's concerns would receive all necessary attention with a view to resolving them within an appropriate period and ``in the absence of any emerging or unforeseen issues''. As that was not the firm date that the committee had requested, committee members felt that correspondence on the matter should go to the minister.

In his reply of October 25, 2012, the minister indicated that the proposed amendment is presently being prepared by the RCMP, with the goal of completing it in the near future.

The correspondence between the RCMP and lead counsel following the letter from the minister confirmed one point: that the proposed solution would indeed solve the problem. This was confirmed on November 20, 2012.

We have also heard recently that the drafting instructions for the amendments have been completed. If the committee is satisfied, counsel can monitor progress in the usual way and keep the committee informed of developments.

Hon. members: Agreed.

[English]

SOR/2010-28 — ORDER EXEMPTING BANDS FROM THE OPERATION OF SECTION 32 OF THE INDIAN ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 20B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): This is an order exempting bands from the operation of section 32 of the Indian Act. This exempts all Indian bands and their members in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta from this section of the act.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: You summed up the problem well. The committee concluded that it is not appropriate to amend the act by rendering section 32 inoperative and that it would be better for Parliament to repeal the section. The note prepared for the committee contains a detailed analysis of the reasons why the committee came to that conclusion.

In October 2011, the minister provided the assurance that section 32 would be repealed if the Indian Act were amended in a broad fashion. The committee was concerned about the possibility that a broad review of that kind would not happen in a reasonable amount of time. In the meantime, the minister's order would remain in effect. So the committee wished to obtain a commitment from the minister to introduce a bill with the sole purpose of repealing section 32.

The committee also proposed including the amendment in the next miscellaneous statute law amendments bill. The minister replied that this amendment seems to go beyond the scope of the miscellaneous statute law amendments program. He also pointed out the existence of Bill C-428, a private member's bill, one of the objectives of which is to repeal section 32.

The minister ends by writing that, if Bill C-428 did not have that result, other possibilities of repealing section 32 will be explored within the framework of future legislative activities. I assume that, at this stage, the members of the committee would like counsel to monitor developments in terms of Bill C-428.

[English]

Mr. Saxton: I understand there is a private member's bill before the house right now which would deal with this issue?

Mr. Rousseau: Among other issues.

Mr. Saxton: Yes, good. It will deal with several issues.

Mr. Rousseau: There is a provision repealing section 32.

Mr. Saxton: Should we not follow that and wait for it to take place?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Yes, indeed, that is a good solution. The only question I have is whether the committee would like to have a progress report on Bill C-428, say next September, or do you prefer to wait until we know the fate of the bill for sure?

[English]

Mr. Saxton: Sure. Let us get a progress report in September. That sounds good to me.

Mr. Pacetti: At what stage is Bill C-428?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The bill is at second reading. It is been referred to the committee that deals with Aboriginal affairs.

Mr. Pacetti: Whose bill is it? Who is the member?

Mr. Rousseau: The name escapes me.

Hon. members: Rob Clarke.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We are agreed with that approach?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/88-58 — AIR TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 20C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The next item on our agenda is under ``Reply Unsatisfactory (?).'' It has been before the committee since 1990. The amendments have been promised. We have had correspondence indicating work has been postponed because of reallocation of resources and government priorities. Is there anything to add to that, counsel?

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: I would note that when the file was last before the committee, members concluded that the proposed timeline then was acceptable but asked that the agency agree to proceed with the committee's amendments independently in the event that any unexpected delay should arise. The committee also suggested that a miscellaneous regulatory amendment process may be a suitable option. The agency's replies in May 2010 and April 2012 do not respond to those suggestions; they merely go on explaining progress and then delay.

Given that the agency has not really provided a response to what the committee suggested the last time, it is open to members at this point on how they wish to proceed.

Mr. Strahl: I propose that we follow up with them again to see if they have resumed work on the amendments and if they are still on track to meet the deadlines that are specified.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: What do you suggest? Because they do not seem in a hurry to react. Do you have a specific suggestion for something else? What can we do so that the request has some effect?

Mr. Rousseau: That is always the question. If the committee is not satisfied with the speed of the progress, there are always our usual means. We can take the next steps we have available. We can write to the minister; in certain cases, we also have the option of asking witnesses to come so that we can see why progress is not as fast as we might hope. It is all completely up to the committee to decide whether the time has come to proceed by means other than by correspondence between committee counsel and the departments.

[English]

Mr. Pacetti: I am wondering if the committee would be amenable to writing in the letter that if they do not take some type of action or confirm with us that they are taking some type of action, we would consider having them appear before the committee or at least some kind of a vague threat. You may not be in favour of that, but at least if it is a vague threat it may push them to react a little.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We could express our concern with respect to the lack of priority, and if they are not forthcoming with a more positive response, the committee will have to consider additional steps. Do members agree with that approach?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 20D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We have talked about this in the past, where two bodies that have the power to fix fees for the same service.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: At the outset, for this matter, five amendments were promised. Four of them were done when SOR/ 2007-223, and more recently SOR/2011-11 and SOR/2012-286, were passed. They were technical and drafting points.

As the joint chair pointed out, disagreement remains over the fifth point. The note prepared for the committee summarizes the correspondence on the matter since 2009. The Governor-in-Council and the minister both have the power to set fees for the same agency services. After recognizing that Parliament was supposed to amend the legislation in question in order to establish which fees take precedence if ever a conflict arose from the Governor-in-Council and the minister each exercising their respective authority, the agency changed its mind in 2011. It now feels that the risk of a conflict is low and it is ready to run that risk. Even if the risk is small, it nevertheless exists, as the Bartholomew Green case shows. This was a case decided by the Federal Court in 1978 that is dealt with in the correspondence.

In a conflict, the courts will have to decide. The question is why do we have to leave it to the courts to make a decision when Parliament could easily remove any uncertainty?

It is useful to remember that, in another file, which dealt with a comparable situation, that of the fees charged to use Canadian parks, the joint chairs wrote to the Minister of the Environment last June.

In a nutshell, they pointed out that, legally, the Governor-in-Council and the minister are two different entities. With the overlaps in the powers of each to establish the fees provided for in both acts, the legal possibility inherently remains for two separate fees to be set, for a permit, for example.

Second, the joint chairs expressed the opinion that healthy legislative policy requires that, if fees are set by one party in the name of Parliament, it must be clear that another such party cannot set fees for the same things.

Finally, they made the point strongly that the Bartholomew Green case provides one example of a conflict arising when two separate entities have the power to set fees for the same things, even if the risks of it happening are low. Clarifying the matter by legislation saves the parties from being forced to spend time and money to have it settled in court. The Minister of the Environment has not yet provided his opinion on the matter.

If the committee is of the opinion that the situation in this file is no more satisfactory than the position taken by Parks Canada with park user fees, counsel could write back to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to explain and emphasize the point the joint chairs made when they wrote to the Minister of the Environment. The committee could also decide to write to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food about the matter and investigate how to proceed in both files in the light of the two responses.

Finally, the committee could simply decide to wait for the response from the Minister of the Environment and use it in your assessment of the next steps in the file we are considering today.

[English]

Mr. Saxton: Thank you, counsel, for that explanation. I think this is a bit of a hypothetical situation. It is very unlikely that we will end up with two departments putting fees in place that are contradictory. However, having said that, I do think that it would be helpful to get this cleared up. I certainly think that writing the Minister of Agriculture is not a bad thing to do and we can just ask for clarification as to how they intend to resolve this once and for all.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we all in agreement with that approach?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Braley: What is the difference between a fee and a tax? I cannot read it in here. Can you drop me a short note in point form so I can try to understand it?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Let us have that discussion in another forum.

SOR/2009-258 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COST OF BORROWING (BANKS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-259 - REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COST OF BORROWING (AUTHORIZED FOREIGN BANKS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-260 - REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COST OF BORROWING (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-261 - REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COST OF BORROWING (RETAIL ASSOCIATIONS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-262 - REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COST OF BORROWING (CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-263 - REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COST OF BORROWING (FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 20E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under ``Part Action Promised'' on our agenda are six items amending the cost of borrowing regulations and making a number of amendments addressing concerns of the committee, primarily drafting. However, some concerns remain in terms of ambiguity and subjective requirements. Perhaps you can explain that, counsel.

Mr. Abel: I would note these instruments make 33 amendments addressing matters raised previously by the committee in connection with earlier versions of these regulations. Eight new matters were raised collectively concerning all the instruments. The departments agreed to make amendments addressing drafting and language equivalency issues in connection with point 1, part of point 4, point 5, point 7 and point 8 of counsel's letter. A typographical error under point 6 has already been addressed by means of an administrative correction. Points 2 to 4 are outstanding and are discussed in the note prepared for today.

These matters all concern the intended meaning of vague or subjective wording. Under point 2, section 6(2.4)(c) requires that an information box that must accompany the disclosure statement relating to a credit agreement have sufficient margins, such that sufficient white space is provided around the text. Attempts to elucidate the exact meaning of those requirements only returned similarly vague instructions in an administrative guideline.

The department argues that the wording reflects policy not to be overly prescriptive and that the ordinary meaning of the term should be relied upon. The problem here is that it is simply unknowable what amount of margin or white space would be sufficient to meet the requirement. It is not even clear what the purpose of the requirements are, which would help to guess what would meet the requirement.

The fact remains that these requirements are law. Imprecise drafting makes it difficult or impossible to know precisely what must be done to obey the law and only serves to grant undue discretion to officials that enforce it. This requires individuals and institutions to endure the time and expense of judicial proceedings to determine their rights and obligations.

The committee generally has always held that, whenever possible, requirements set out by way of subordinate legislation should be clear and unambiguous. We have a similar situation under points 3 and 4. These deal with provisions for freeing lenders from having to provide disclosure agreements in relation to credit agreements under point 3, for instance, if they provide a rescission period in the credit agreement. Counsel asked what length of rescission period would be sufficient. Would a trivially short period qualify? No substantive reply was received from the department. It still has not explained if there is any length requirement. Under point 4, there is a requirement that the lender does not have to provide a disclosure agreement if favourable terms are provided, but again it is unknown what that means.

I would suggest that the department's replies so far have not sufficiently clarified the issue and even if clear and precise explanations could be provided, it would seem that the provisions do need to be amended in order to set out to those reading them exactly what needs to be done to meet the requirements.

Perhaps that should all be put again to the department.

Senator Braley: Is this the first time it has come before this committee?

Mr. Abel: Yes.

Senator Braley: There seem to be two components. One is that certain amendments have been promised, but when do we expect them? That should be one definitive letter or one definitive point in a letter.

The other part I would take a little more strongly in the sense that we are disappointed with the response and that we had expected to be able to finalize the definitions or terms or what the words mean, and that we expect that to be done. If not, the same way you closed the first one should be a little stronger because I think they just avoided answering on that part. That is my personal opinion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there additional comments?

Mr. Pacetti: I do not have a problem with that but just to avoid back and forth, some of these things are menial. I do not know if that is the right word. Is there any way you can get on the phone and work out a compromise regarding what would be acceptable?

Mr. Abel: We can contact the department by phone or we can offer to have a phone conversation with them. We do that sometimes, often at the suggestion of members. We can certainly put it to them in the letter that we send back to them after the meeting.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we all right with that approach?

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: It is just a concern because we can see that it is not clear. I am imagining Canadians in specific situations, someone who is going to ask to borrow money, for example. Some things are just not clear. We have to make people's lives easier; that is why we are here and that is why we make the laws. So we have to be more demanding in this case. Because if things are not clear, if something is vague when someone goes to the bank to borrow money, well, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of our fellow citizens. It takes time, but the effect is on people's lives. How do we go about exerting some pressure? How do we go about fixing the situation? That is what concerns me.

Mr. Rousseau: In the correspondence that will follow the possible phone call, we can make clear to the minister the kind of concern that you have just voiced and express the hope that, in this case, things can be really done at a more satisfactory speed. We can insist on the point and spell it out in the correspondence.

[English]

SOR/2001-316 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF (HARMONIZED SYSTEM, 2002)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 20F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under the heading ``Part Action Taken,'' Item No. 6 relates to an Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff. Nineteen issues were raised by the committee and all but two have been resolved. There is some question with respect to whether, indeed, there will be a positive response. Finance has indicated they are still consulting to determine whether the changes are necessary. If they are necessary, they have indicated that they expect to make the amendments in early or mid-2013.

Mr. Abel: That is correct, Mr. Chair.

I would only note that the department had previously committed to making the amendments. The impression given by their December 2012 letter was a backing away from that. Now it is a bit unclear.

Given that they have said that if they are to make the remaining two amendments, they will be done early to mid- 2013, it might be best for counsel to seek a final answer shortly on whether they will make it. We will then bring that back to the committee.

Mr. Anders: I suggest we write back asking for an update and when they will be in a position to determine if amendments are necessary.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Can we have more details about the two outstanding issues?

Mr. Abel: They both deal with terms used in the French version of the regulations. Point 2 deals with the French term ``huile de base.'' It has been suggested that should be used instead of the English term ``base stock,'' which is used in both the English and French versions at present.

Under point 15, it was suggested that the term ``churches,'' which is used in the French version, should be replaced with a less restrictive term to refer to religious locations or institutions to bring it more in line with the meaning in the English version.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Earth-shattering issues. In any event, we will follow up. Do we agree with Mr. Anders' suggestion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-219 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 20G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item No. 7, Regulations Amending the Canadian Grain Regulations. Again, there are discrepancies between the English and French versions of some tables.

Does counsel have anything to add?

Mr. Abel: Mr. Chair, I would note that there were eight matters originally pursued in connection with the file after it was last at committee. Five of those have been resolved by SOR/2009-209.

Of the three remaining, one matter relating to Table 5 of Schedule 3 was rendered moot when that table was replaced. The other two involved formatting issues of the amending provisions of the instrument. This is not entirely clear from the correspondence before the committee, but those were both resolved by administrative correction rather than formal amendment. Given that the errors were typographical in nature, that seems satisfactory. If the committee is satisfied, the file can now be closed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The file will be closed.

SOR/2010-191 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT AND REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. p. 20H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 8 concerns Regulations Amending the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations. This deals with three points the committee raised. Two have been dealt with, and we will find out what is happening with the other one.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Exactly, Mr. Chair. Two of the promised amendments have already been made by SOR/2012-49 and SOR/2012-72.

As for the third amendment, the problem can be summed up like this. At the moment, SOR/2010-191 states that contravening section 36 of the Pest Control Products Regulations is an offence punishable under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.

But, as it is presently drafted, it is not possible to contravene section 36. This provision permits a pest control product to be imported into Canada if it is accompanied by a declaration that provides the required information. By importing these products without providing the declaration actually contravenes section 6(1) of the Pest Control Products Act that prohibits their import without authorization under the regulations.

The minister has recognized the problem and has committed to looking at the wording of section 36 once more.

In the letter of October 25, 2012, the department indicated that this third amendment that it has promised should be adopted by the fall of 2012 or the winter of 2013. That should be soon. If the committee is satisfied, counsel will write to the department to monitor the matter in the usual way and keep the committee informed of the progress made.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are members in agreement with that recommendation?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Ms. Young: Counsel was well on top of this.

SOR/2002-438 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, 2002-2 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. p. 20I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): We are now going into four items where some progress is being made — at least we are told there is. The first is SOR/2002-438, Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Administered and Enforced by CFIA. CFIA anticipates the amendments will be coming into force this year.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Exactly. This file deals with section 135.1 of the Health of Animals Regulations. This provision states that the holder of a permit shall report to the Minister, in writing, any information concerning or any evidence of, a significant deficiency in safety, potency or efficacy or a veterinary biologic within 15 days after the date on which that information or evidence is known to the holder or is generally known to the industry.

The committee pointed out that there are cases in which the holder of a permit can therefore be accused of failing to report an element of the information when he is actually unaware of it.

In its letter of September 19, 2012, the agency indicates that the promised amendment is part of a regulatory amendment package that should be passed in 2013.

Once again, if the committee is satisfied, counsel will monitor the file and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

Senator Braley: Let us just monitor the file.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-80 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 20J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Regarding this item, we have been promised an amendment within a year.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The correspondence brought to the committee's attention today deals with section 32 of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations. It stipulates that the Board of Examiners may conduct examinations for any class of licence or pilotage certificate at any time if the Authority considers it appropriate to meet their needs.

The committee pointed out that, legally, nothing seems to justify the adoption of section 32. The provision sets out no point of law and has no place in a text of a legal nature.

As the joint chair mentioned, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority announced that it wished to repeal it in 2012. In its letter of October 26, 2012, the Department of Transport tells us that the authority now anticipates it being done in 2013.

Once more, it would be appropriate for counsel to write to the department to see if matters are proceeding as anticipated.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-181 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1369 — INTERIM MARKETING AUTHORIZATIONS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 20K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Regarding this item, the suggestion from the department is that the issue will resolve itself when Bill C-38's provisions come into force.

Mr. Abel: That is correct, Madam Chair. The relevant provisions of Bill C-38 have now come into force. The department's most recent letter states that the paragraph in question will be spent once the statutory amendments come into force. Assuming that means that they intend to repeal the provision — because until they do, it is still active — counsel could inquire as to when that will be done.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-17 — TOYS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 20L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item No. 11, the Toys Regulations have only been before us for two years. Health Canada is developing a regulatory proposal to address our concerns.

Mr. Abel: I would note that these regulations replace the Hazardous Products (Toys) Regulations and in doing so made a number of corrections already requested by the committee in relation to those regulations. Further amendments have been promised. The department's November 23, 2012, letter indicates that those are expected to be completed this year.

At this time, I would suggest counsel seek an update as to progress.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-446 — TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD REGULATIONS

(For full text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 20M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next, under ``Progress (?)'' on our agenda, are the Transport Safety Board Regulations. With regard to this item, over 15 years later, we are still waiting.

Mr. Abel: As members may have noticed, the second and third pages of the English version of the note have been reversed. The note does set out relevant concerns in some detail.

The history of the file, as Madam Chair noted, has been lengthy and not without some difficulty, but it may now be approaching a close. Six amendments are planned, which would address the committee's long-standing concerns. While most of the amendments relate to matters of clarification of procedural issues or drafting matters, one amendment would set out, as required by the act, the rights and privileges of observers during the interview of a witness in an investigation. This would finally bring an end to the unlawful grant of complete discretion to the board to decide the rights of those observers.

Proposed amendments were pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, in September 2011. In May 2012, the board stated that the amendments were to be made by that summer. However, by November, it was indicated that the amendments would be delayed for a while as a result of some comments that were received. This necessitated a re- drafting and then approval again from the Department of Justice Canada.

This is where things stand at the moment. Nothing further has been heard from the board. If members wish, counsel can inquire at this time as to whether further progress has been made and when the amendments are expected to be finally completed.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-273 — TOBACCO REPORTING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 20N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item No. 14, I understand from the briefing notes that the amendments will again be postponed.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Madam Joint Chair, the 20 or so amendments promised in this file cover the entire range of problems that the committee has become accustomed to pointing out. They go from drafting errors to unlawful provisions that require persons who are not subject to the Tobacco Act to provide information. The proposed amendment intended to correct several of those problems was published in 2001. It was never passed and the Minister of Health explained that, at the time, a decision had been made to prepare additional amendments. That proposal was supposed to be published in 2007, but that did not happen.

The chronology in the note prepared for the committee sets out the reasons given for the numerous delays with which these proposed regulations have been beset. In the letter of November 21, 2012, the department indicates that the proposal, intended for publication in the spring of 2013, should now be published in the fall of 2013. Perhaps the committee could suggest that the promised amendments be passed independently of the others if the department cannot meet their latest deadline.

[English]

Mr. Anders: I suggest we write back firmly stating the committee's concern with the amount of time it has taken thus far.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any further comments? Is it agreed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-148 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF ``SMALL CABLE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM'' REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 20O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Regarding Item No. 15 on our agenda, we have received a number of commitments, but thus far none of them have been kept.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: I have to emphasize that the promised amendment is about correcting the French version of one of the provisions in the regulations. The department wants to bring forward that amendment at the same time as a number of other amendments made necessary by technological changes in the area. When the committee examined the matter in 2010, the department anticipated that it would be done in 2011. In May 2012, the department indicated that the amendments should be passed as soon as it was possible. In its letter of November 9, 2012, the department announced that it anticipated publishing proposed regulations, possibly at the start of 2013.

That has still not been done. It would be appropriate to write back to the department to ask if it still plans to publish the proposed regulations in the coming weeks.

[English]

Mr. Vellacott: In writing to request the update, we should remind them that there has been a little bit of a passage of time here. We should ask for the update and see if we get a response.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-27 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COLLISION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 20P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under ``Action Promised (?) on our agenda is Item No. 16. In reviewing the file it looks like we are getting more muddled instead of getting greater clarity.

Mr. Abel: For two of the three matters that are outstanding, amendments have been promised since January 2010.

The third matter concerns the inclusion of material in a table to Annex 3 of Schedule 1 of the regulations and in a note accompanying the table.

This material appears to set out technical requirements for a ship-mounted whistle but in fact only sets out what are intended to be practical guidelines for the benefit of mariners. According to previous correspondence from the department, not only are the standards not intended to be binding but, in practice, may not even be consistently applicable given the variation of environmental circumstances that may be encountered at sea.

The committee has twice considered that this information should be removed from the table and be provided by other non-legislative means.

The department's November 10, 2010, letter stated this issue was being considered in consultation with the Department of Justice Canada, and indicated the other two amendments would be forthcoming. Nothing further was received; there was no reply from the department until November 2012, in a letter only stating that the amendments were planned to proceed in the way of a miscellaneous regulatory amendment package.

It is unclear whether this should be taken to refer only to the two previously promised amendments or to that third matter, as well. At the least, some clarification should be obtained from the department and perhaps a more precise time frame for completing all of the amendments.

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

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I think we should proceed along those lines to get clarification and then see when we have a more specific timeline.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are we agreed to send a letter asking for clarification and a harder deadline?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-294 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY REGULATIONS

(For full text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 20Q:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Items 17 and 18 fall under the heading ``Action Promised.'' The first is Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency Regulations. Three down and three to go.

Mr. Abel: This instrument corrects three provisions in which the committee had identified discrepancies between the French and English versions. Three new drafting concerns were raised. Amendments are promised to address those issues and are expected to be pre-published in 2014.

If members are satisfied with that, counsel will continue to monitor the file in the usual fashion.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-153 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 20R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): In Item No. 18 there is a ton of verbiage about the French version of the metric tonne.

Mr. Abel: It was noted that Form 15 of Schedule 4 of the regulations uses the word ``tonne'' in both English and French versions. While in English this can only be taken to mean a metric tonne, in French the equivalent term, in accordance with the Weights and Measures Act, must be ``tonne métrique'' in order to distinguish from the older unit of measurement meaning 2,000 pounds.

The Canadian Grain Commission's reply suggests that as a matter of statutory interpretation the English version of the word evidently meets the intention of the drafter and therefore would be taken to be the correct meaning. The joint committee, however, has always taken the position that each version of an instrument should be clear in and of itself. Not every person governed by a piece of legislation may have the benefit of comparing both versions.

In any case, the commission has agreed to amend the French version. Counsel could draft a letter at this point seeking an expected date for the making of that amendment.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): We could send them a letter saying, ``Thanks a tonne.''

Are we agreed with counsel's suggestion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-116 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE STAFFING TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 20S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under ``Action Taken'' we have two items. For the first, we had five concerns about the Regulations Amending the Public Service Staffing Tribunal Regulations, and all appear now to be resolved.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Exactly, Madam Joint Chair. I would just add that some of the committee's concerns dealt with the discretionary power of the tribunal and that the amendments that have been made now frame that discretionary power satisfactorily.

SOR/2012-136 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AIRLINE REGULATIONS (PARTS 1, VI AND VII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 20T:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: These are changes that have allowed for an incorrect reference in three provisions of the Canadian Airline Regulations to be corrected. The last two files that the committee dealt with can be closed.

SI/2012-61 — ORDER FIXING JULY 27, 2012 AS THE DATE ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-65 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 15, 2012 AS THE DATE ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SOR/92-618 — FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/94-442 — CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS, 1993, AMENDMENT

SOR/95-122 — CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS, 1993, AMENDMENT

SOR/2006-131 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NAFTA RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-112 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DEDUCTION FOR PROVINCIAL REBATE (GST/ HST) REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-240 — FIRST NATIONS LOCAL REVENUE LAW REVIEW REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-271 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-281 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS, 1993

SOR/2008-187 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA STUDENT LOAN REGULATIONS AND THE CANADA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-320 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFSHORE REVENUE FISCAL EQUALIZATION OFFSET PAYMENTS REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-108 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS, 1993

SOR/2009-188 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NAFTA RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-189 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NAFTA RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS (TRACK III)

SOR/2009-328 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ONTARIO FISHERY REGULATIONS, 2007

SOR/2012-7 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (IRAN) REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-145 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (SYRIA) REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-150 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PARI-MUTUEL BETTING SUPERVISION REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-155 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-157 — ORDER 2012-87-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2012-158 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2012-159 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

Mr. Rousseau: So I can conclude by indicating that these 23 instruments in the ``Statutory Instruments without Comment'' category have been examined by counsel and considered to be in conformity with the committee's examination criteria.

That completes our agenda.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Thank you very much. I assume no one wants to keep a file open that we can close. In that case, our committee business is done.

(The committee adjourned.)