---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 24 - Evidence - May 23, 2013

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, May 23, 2013

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day, at 8:31 a.m., for the review of statutory instruments.

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

[English]

SOR/2005-173 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, IV, V AND VII)

SOR/2005-348 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND V)

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 24A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Letters To And From Ministers," the first item on our agenda concerns a number of points that were raised in the correspondence with the department five years ago and responses provided to some of them. Counsel?

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: That is correct. A partial response was provided back in 2011. On December 15, 2011, the committee considered those partial replies. The result in the end was the co-chairs' letter to the minister seeking his cooperation to ensure that a reply dealing with the other points the department had been studying — by then for two and a half years — was provided without further delay, and a number of other points on which the initial reply was considered unsatisfactory were followed up.

There was no response until January 10, when the department advised that it was aware of the fact that responses have been outstanding for several years on a number of files and that it struck a steering committee with the goal of taking more concrete measures. The department says it expects amendments will be made this year to meet some unspecified commitments and in the department's words, it plans to do whatever is required to fulfill its promises and address the remaining points raised.

There is an appendix to the department's letter that lists all the relevant instruments it is referring to.

Concerning these two files specifically, I suppose the bottom line is that as of this moment, the committee still has no reply on the substance of the matters pursued in the chair's letter to the minister or, for that matter, on four points that were not dealt with in the department's first response. More generally, I imagine members will have noted that there are a number of files — I think 11 on this morning's agenda — where the situation is similar. A large number of questions have arisen out of the many amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Some of these do raise fundamental issues as to how the regulations are intended to operate, particularly with respect to the new safety management system they are meant to implement. In some cases, amendments have been promised, but the timeline has been postponed. In other cases, the department has been studying the matter for several years but has not yet provided a substantive reply.

Frankly, it sometimes seems even the department does not understand everything that is in the regulations and the departmental standards that the regulations incorporate.

I simply mention those other files to draw attention to the broader focus.

Mr. Saxton: Thank you, counsel. I recommend that we write back to the department and try to incorporate, in one letter, all of the issues from the 10 or 11 different files, and ask them for an update and clarification. I understand that they do expect an amendment sometime in 2013. We are almost halfway through 2013, so let us ask them specifically when they expect that to happen as well. However, I do encourage counsel to try to put it all in one letter to simplify the situation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): No challenge with respect to that?

Mr. Bernhardt: No. I think if members concur, we could also remind the department that eventually the committee will expect replies on all of these points, and might indicate we will bring the file back in the fall and hope to see some progress by then.

Mr. Saxton: You might want a number so there is no ambiguity as to how many there are.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes. There are a lot.

Senator Moore: Are we keeping the exchange at the ministerial level? We have been dealing with the minister. I think we should keep it there.

Mr. Bernhardt: On these files, there was a letter to the minister. On some of the other files, we are still at the departmental stage.

Senator Moore: Whatever you think is most beneficial.

Mr. Bernhardt: I am in members' hands.

Mr. Saxton: Do we cc the minister sometimes?

Mr. Bernhardt: We can. In this case, given the scope and the number of issues, it might be easiest to go back to the department, particularly as the letter will end up with this newly created steering committee.

Senator Moore: Let us do that and cc the minister. You were corresponding with him, so he knows we are keeping him in the loop.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We will do that.

SOR/2009-280 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, II AND IV TO VII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 24B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 2 on our agenda is similar to the previous one. Counsel?

[Translation]

Jacques Rousseau, Counsel to the Committee: I do not know if there is a lot to add to what has already been said about the handling of these files. I would quickly just to remind everyone that the first letter was sent to the department on January 12, 2011, and covers 28 points, including several meant, among other things, to clarify the regulations about how the minister exercises his discretionary authority and points dealing with the validity of the provisions.

On May 30, 2011, the department indicated that it would send a detailed response as soon as possible. That response has yet to arrive. Once again, in this matter, the joint chairs wrote to the minister on June 12 and October 30, 2012, and the response we received was the letter of January 10, 2013, covered previously.

I do not think I have anything to add. The 29 points on which we are awaiting a reply will be part of the letter to be sent to the department following the decision in the first file.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2012-100 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 17, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SUBSECTIONS 13(4) AND (5) OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 24C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item No. 3 under the heading "New Instruments." This instrument is in relation to veterans' benefits.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Joint Chair, the Statutes Repeal Act requires that, in every calendar year, the Minister of Justice lays before each House of Parliament a report listing every act of Parliament or provision of an act of Parliament that is to come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council and that was assented to nine years or more before the December 31 immediately preceding the report, but had not come into force on or before that December 31.

The act sets out that every act or provision listed in the annual report is repealed on December 31 of the year in which the report is laid unless it comes into force on or before that December 31 or during that year either House of Parliament adopts a resolution that the act or provision not be repealed.

In this case, the legislative provisions would have to be mentioned in the 2011 report. The department acknowledges that it was an oversight. They were finally mentioned in the 2012 report and, on December 6, 2012, the Governor-in- Council made an order fixing December 17, 2012, as their coming into force date. No other action has been taken in this file. It can be closed if the committee is satisfied.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Shall we close the file?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2012-94 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 15, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 24D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 4 is similar to that which was just discussed. Do you have anything else to add to this, counsel?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Exactly, Mr. Joint Chair. The response we received from the department in this matter is that Parliament amended the provision concerning the coming into force of those legislative provisions. Originally, they should have come into effect by order. On June 29, 2010, Parliament amended this to indicate when those legislative provisions would come into effect. As a result, the provisions no longer had to be mentioned in the reports tabled under the Statutes Repeal Act.

Then, Parliament again amended the provision concerning the coming into effect of those provisions to again give the Governor-in-Council the authority to fix the date by order. Using that authority, the Governor-in-Council fixed the date as December 15, 2012.

Once again, no further action is required in this file, and it can be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Agreed? Senator Bellemare, do you agree to close the file?

Senator Bellemare: Yes, we can close the file.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-155 — SCHEDULE I CHEMICALS REGULATIONS (CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 24E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Reply Unsatisfactory," this item has been before the committee for five years. We have raised four points in the past and DFAIT has agreed to implement all of the amendments suggested by the committee. I know there is something to add to this, counsel.

Mr. Bernhardt: I would add briefly that the four points were followed up in two cases because clarification was sought. In the other two cases, the promise was simply to consult with Department of Justice drafters. Therefore, the committee wanted to know if the amendments would actually be made.

The department's reply seems to believe they had already promised to make all of these amendments. However, in fact, that was not so with regard to at least two of them. If the department is now saying, yes, they will make them all, that is great. It might be worth writing back to get confirmation of that, since it is not really clear where they stand on those two particular points, which are numbers 14 and 15.

I will make a brief comment on the reference to cabinet confidentiality. No one asked for the work of the drafters or a copy of the drafting instructions; what was simply asked for was whether they agreed with the committee and would be making amendments.

I do not think there is any need to get into discussions of cabinet confidentiality for that kind of thing. It is probably just a case of ensuring the department will make the amendments when it says it will, including all of those dealt with in the April 28 letter.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Perhaps we should write back, ensuring that they share our perspective on those four points.

Do you have a comment, Mr. Strahl?

Mr. Strahl: I was just wondering what more we think we will get out of the department if they have already said they are committed to implementing the amendments that the committee has suggested. They said they would implement all of the amendments suggested by the committee.

Is there a reason we would not just monitor the file rather than write back and say we want clarification? We want them to make the amendments and they have said they will, so can we just monitor the file and see if they do?

Mr. Bernhardt: The only concern we had when we read that February 5 letter was the portion that says: "As I believe you are aware, the department has agreed . . . ."

In fact, they did not previously agree on two of those. Therefore, we were not sure whether to take that now as saying they were agreeing with those two, or they just think they agreed with them before when they did not. All we are suggesting at this point would be to expressly ask: Does that include numbers 14 and 15? Beyond that, we have nothing really.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): It is clarification.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I fully agree with what you are saying. A letter needs to be sent seeking more details and letting them know which points we agree with. The letter needs to be clear with respect to our requests. If possible, we should provide deadlines. It is important.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is it agreed that we send a letter seeking clarification?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 24F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 6 under "Reply Unsatisfactory (?)" concerns the Northwest Territories Reindeer Regulations. In 1983, we were told the regulations would be amended in the near future. Of course, we know that has not occurred.

Mr. Bernhardt: I do not propose to go through the history or the issues as they are all set out in the note. Suffice it to say that the committee had been told when this file was last before the committee that the amendments would be finally made this spring. In its March 15 letter, however, the department now states that the amendments have been abandoned because of the recent Northwest Territories devolution agreement, which will lead to these regulations simply disappearing.

The projected time frame for completing the implementation of the devolution agreement right now is 18 months. I think that seems optimistic. I looked at the department's website. It did indicate that consultations on the amendments were completed and there was no controversy or opposition to them.

At this point, that leaves the committee with a couple of options. One, given that they were that far along the road, if it is thought there might be delays, the committee could write and ask that the amendments go ahead anyway in the interim. The second option would be simply to monitor the file until the devolution agreement is implemented. Presumably, then the regulations will disappear and the file could be closed. The third option would be to assume that eventually the devolution agreement will be implemented and close the file at this point. Those are the three options I see.

Senator Braley: Even if you write them, I do not think you will get much back. I think everything will get cleaned up with the agreement, and the agreement is very likely to go through.

I would monitor the file at this point, and if the agreement will not go through, then you have to reopen the file. We should close the file as soon as that agreement is in place, because we are just abandoning it anyway.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Senator Braley has recommended monitoring the file. Do members agree with that course of action?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-609 — RADIO REGULATIONS, 1986, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 24G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 7 has been before the committee since 1996. The Broadcasting Act gives the CRTC the authority to make regulations requiring licencees to submit to the commission such information as the regulations may specify.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: As you said, Mr. Joint Chair, Parliament set out that the information licensees are required to submit had to be stipulated by the regulation. The regulations adopted by the CRTC mean that licensees must provide the requested information in the most recent CRTC form.

The required information is not stipulated by regulation but in an administrative form. This is not consistent with the intent of Parliament.

In 1999, without stating that the provision is illegal, the CRTC agreed to make changes to the regulations regarding information requirements, and to take the necessary steps to obtain an amendment of the act to expand its regulatory powers regarding information requirements. This attempt to have the act amended was unsuccessful.

In 2011, the CRTC amended the Radio Regulations, 1986, but not the provision challenged by the committee. However, it repealed a similar provision in another set of regulations, the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.

When asked why it decided not to repeal the provision concerning information requirements as well, the CRTC reiterated in its October 30, 2012, letter that it felt the provision was legal.

As we can see in the letter of November 13, 2012, sent by committee counsel, and on page 3 of the brief, these reasons are not convincing. Overall, the author and the case law cited by the CRTC do not support the CRTC's position.

After saying that it would reply to the letter from the committee's counsel, the CRTC instead decided not to, as indicated in its letter of February 12, 2013. The CRTC announced its three-year plan, which is to end in 2015. It would include a review of the information requirements for licensees.

The type of information, and even the requirement for this information, could change. The CRTC intends to examine these issues and consider the committee's comments to determine which regulatory amendments might have to be made to the information requirements.

So that is where we are at, 18 years later.

[English]

Senator Batters: We should probably write back asking for a response to the committee's concerns.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-85 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND III)

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 24H:1.)

SOR/2007-87 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, III, VI AND VII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 24I:1.)

SOR/2011-284 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND IV — CONDUCT OF FLIGHT TESTS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 24J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Mr. Strahl, can we deal with all three agenda items under "Part Action Promised" as one?

Mr. Strahl: In the first intervention, Mr. Saxton recommended that we combine all of the Canadian Aviation Regulations concerns into a single letter, noting that we wanted replies on all of them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Does that cover this as well?

Mr. Rousseau: Certainly.

Mr. Saxton: Does counsel wish to add anything?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Perhaps I could just mention that, in these three files — numbers 8, 9 and 10 — there are 20 promised amendments, and we are still awaiting replies on the other issues. That is all.

[English]

Mr. Saxton: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Ms. Ayala has a concern.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: That concerns me a little because I see here some case law, and the CRTC is basing its argument on the facts that support a regulation. Therefore, the justices are giving an opinion. But the spirit of the law is not really being respected. It is a concern.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Which item are you on?

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: It is because I raised my hand, and I was not given the floor; that is all. I raised my hand before my colleague did, but they did not see me. Maybe next time I will sit over there.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Ms. Ayala has suggested that we revert to Item No. 7. Apparently she has some concerns.

Go ahead, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: That is why I am concerned. I would like more information. They are taking some information and have a certain amount of control over the program content. There in lies the danger.

Mr. Rousseau: The matter is simple enough, technical enough at this point. What Parliament set out is that the CRTC would specify through the regulations the information that licensees would be required to provide.

What the CRTC did instead was to specify that the information would be provided in administrative forms that would be sent to them from time to time.

In a sense, this is illegal, but from a very technical standpoint, it is the way to proceed.

The CRTC did not go about things the way Parliament intended it to, and that is what the committee has been trying to rectify since 1995.

As for the case law, we can wonder whether the case law mentioned by the CRTC is relevant, if it is relevant the way the CRTC says it is. The author, Paul Salambier, who the CRTC quotes Ð I do not know how the CRTC came to its conclusion. Reading what Salambier wrote, we can see that that is not what he said.

For the moment, the CRTC no longer wants to have this discussion with us. What the committee has decided is to write to the CRTC again to ask that it respond to our letter and tell us where it is with respect to the amendments requested by the committee.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): You are content with that?

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: Yes, that is fine.

[English]

SOR/91-365-PARI-MUTUEL BETTING SUPERVISION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 24K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 11 on our agenda under the heading "Reply Satisfactory (?)" has been before the committee for six years and involves a discrepancy rendering the French version more restrictive than the English version. We have had a promise to remedy it, but there has been no indication as to how or when. Do you have anything else on that, counsel?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: I want to say again that, in the letter of February 15, 2013, the Department of Justice replies that it is not currently possible to go through the miscellaneous statute law amendment program and that it will continue reviewing the matter to identify which legislative instrument could be useful to make the amendment.

Before considering this reply satisfactory, committee counsel could ask the department to be more specific regarding the type of legislative instrument that might be appropriate. For example, would it be a bill concerning the same part of the Criminal Code as the one containing provisions on pari-mutuel, and so on? Be a little more specific about what will enable the department to determine which bill would be appropriate to fix the problem.

[English]

Senator Braley: They made a recommendation and sent it to the Department of Justice, who basically sent it back and said it is not their jurisdiction; is that correct? That is what this information seems to say.

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee had suggested that the amendment might go in the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill. The advice from the Department of Justice was that it would not be appropriate to do it that way, so it would have to be done as a normal, typical amendment to the act.

Senator Braley: They asked them to find another vehicle; is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Senator Braley: I agree with your recommendation to write for clarification.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Does everyone share that view? Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-24 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS AND THE REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 24L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 12 concerns the Health of Animals Regulations. In the past, the committee requested a definition to be put into the regulations. The Canada Food Inspection Agency agreed, but for some reason the definition was not included in a recent package of amendments, and they are now telling us that it requires further analysis.

Mr. Bernhardt: I have nothing really to add. As you say, Madam Chair, the committee was led to believe it would be in the package that was made in December. It was not. The advice now is that they expect it will be made in 2014. The question for members is whether they are satisfied with that timeline.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Comments?

Mr. Vellacott: I think we should keep an eye on it and write back at the point where it does not look like it is going forward or there is no action happening. Monitor and write back if necessary.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Counsel, do you have a recommendation?

Mr. Bernhardt: The last advice from them was in March, and that is when they provided the 2014 timeline. We could bring the file back forward for us to follow sometime in the fall, ask for a progress report and see if that is still on track.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Look for an update in the fall. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-77 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI AND VII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 24M:1.)

SOR/2006-199 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI, VII AND VIII)

SOR/2006-352 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND IV)

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 24N:1.)

SOR/2009-90 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI AND VII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 24O:1.)

SOR/2005-354 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART I)

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 24P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "Progress," Items 13 to 17 deal with regulations amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Progress has been promised, but we still lack some clarity with respect to most of these items. I suggest that we add those to the letter proposed by Mr. Saxton.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): The letter becomes a little novella. Is everyone okay with that?

Mr. Saxton: Novellas are fictional, though.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): As are some of the responses, I say respectfully.

SOR/2010-223 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BENZODIAZEPINES AND OTHER TARGETED SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): We are moving on to Item 18, which was before us on May 9. We asked counsel to provide us with a briefing before we decided how to proceed.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The note in the materials explains the scheme of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and that the substances dealt with in these regulations are psychotropic substances, which are commonly referred to as tranquilizers. The concerns that are to be addressed relate to inconsistent use of terminology, incorrect cross-references and unnecessary wording. Again, those are detailed in the note that was in the materials for this morning.

In January, the department stated that the amendments would be made together with some broader reforms that are planned for 2013-14. Perhaps another progress report would be in order at this point.

Senator Batters: This is one that I asked for a bit of clarification on last time because I thought it was potentially a crucial subject area where we needed to have a little more information about what exactly was being sought. Reading that, I am satisfied that the issues are not nearly as serious as they could be. Perhaps we should just monitor and follow up in the fall to get an update then.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-135 — PHYTOPHTHORA RAMORUM COMPENSATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 24Q:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 19 under "Progress (?)" concerns an amendment that had been promised to us. Again, the completion of those amendments has been postponed now to 2014.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The question is whether members are satisfied with that time frame. If they are, the file will be monitored as per usual and periodic updates requested. As I say, that is assuming members are satisfied with that time frame.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-169 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COMPENSATION FOR DESTROYED ANIMALS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 24R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 20 is similar in that the coming into force of these amendments is now anticipated for 2014. Will we monitor progress on this as well?

Mr. Saxton: Just monitor it.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-129 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS, 1998

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 24S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): We are now moving to "Action Promised," Item No. 21. For this file, action is promised for the fall of 2013.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. There are supposed to be new regulations that address these matters. Amendments are promised to the French version of a number of provisions to render terminology consistent with that used in the parent act.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are we okay to monitor until the fall of 2013?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-278 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MANITOBA FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1987

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 24T:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): In this case, Item 22 on our agenda, action was promised, but we do not have a defined timeline.

Mr. Bernhardt: Precisely. Perhaps members might instruct us to write to the department and ask for that timeline.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-128 — ORDER AMENDING THE EXPORT CONTROL LIST

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 24U:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 23 is an order amending the Export Control List. DFAIT is working with the Department of Justice to address our concerns. Are we happy with that, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: If members are happy, we will monitor in the usual fashion. I simply add that this instrument did make three corrections that the committee had asked for as well.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-173 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FISHERY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 24V:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): With regard to agenda Item 24, we raised two issues with the department and we have been promised action on both. Monitor?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-124 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix W, p. 24W:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item No. 25. Consultations have now concluded and Citizenship and Immigration is in the drafting stage of preparing amendments.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The amendments were supposed to have been pre-published in Part I of the Canada Gazette this winter. However, they were not, so an update would appear to be in order.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-271 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA LABOUR CODE

(For text of documents, see Appendix X, p. 24X:1.)

SOR/2013-8 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ON-ROAD VEHICLE AND ENGINE EMISSION REGULATIONS (ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS FOR HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES AND OTHER AMENDMENTS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix Y, p. 24Y:1.)

SOR/2013-19 — CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD (INTERIM OPERATIONS) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Z, p. 24Z:1.)

SOR/2013-56 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1733 — CLINICAL TRIALS — MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix AA, p. 24AA:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agenda Items 26 to 30 appear under the heading "Action Taken." Is there anything to add on those files?

Mr. Bernhardt: I will summarize quickly. Taken as a group, these four instruments make 12 requested amendments. In addition, the amendments made by SOR/2013-271 had the effect of rendering three matters raised by the committee moot.

Finally, the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations by SOR/2013-56 means that the committee's file on SOR/93-486 can be closed. The committee had long-standing concerns as to the validity of section 16 of the regulations that have now been repealed.

SI/2013-13 — ORDER FIXING FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTION 160 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2013-14 — ORDER REPEALING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1965-1169 OF JUNE 23, 1965

SI/2013-15 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 1, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH DIVISION 8 OF PART 4 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2013-16 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE, OTHER THAN SECTIONS 60 TO 64

SI/2013-17 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 1, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2013-18 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 1, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2013-19 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE BERNARD VALCOURT

SI/2013-20 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE GAIL SHEA TO ASSIST THE MEMBER OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA

SI/2013-21 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE STEVEN BLANEY TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SI/2013-22 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS REGISTERED AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTION 46 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2013-23 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 24, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SOR/2012-37 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BROADCASTING DISTRIBUTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-91 — QIKIQTARJUAQ AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-92 — SANIKILUAQ AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-93 — POND INLET AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-94 — PANGNIRTUNG AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-95 — KUGAARUK AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-96 — KIMMIRUT AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-97 — CLYDE RIVER AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-98 — CAPE DORSET AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-2 — ORDER 2012-87-11-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-5 — ORDER 2013-87-01-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-10 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL PARKS OF CANADA AIRCRAFT ACCESS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-11 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-21 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INDIAN REFERENDUM REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-22 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (PRESCRIBED MISSIONS, 2013)

SOR/2013-25 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-26 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-27 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (FISHING) REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernhardt: Finally, simply for the record, I note there is a list of 29 instruments listed under "Statutory Instruments Without Comment."

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): That takes us to the end of our agenda.

(The committee adjourned.)

---