REGS Committee Meeting

---

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, May 27, 2024

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 11:09 a.m. [ET] to conduct a review of review of Statutory Instruments.

Mr. Dan Albas and Senator Yuen Pau Woo (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Good morning, colleagues. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.

I would like to start off today’s meeting of the Standing Joint Committee of the Scrutiny of Regulations with Item 1.

SOR/2014-198 — FIREARMS RECORDS REGULATIONS (CLASSIFICATION)

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 18A:1)

Geoffrey Hilton, Counsel to the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Joint Chair.

These are the Firearms Records Regulations (Classification). Members will recall this file was before the committee just last month. The committee here has been waiting on the repeal of these regulations since the Department of Public Safety first indicated its intention of repealing the regulations seven years ago, in 2017.

At last month’s meeting, there was some discussion about how best to proceed in light of the time it has taken for the repeal to be completed. Options that were considered included sending a letter from the joint chairs to the Minister of Public Safety, inviting the minister to appear before the committee, or issuing a notice of disallowance.

As a reminder, issuing a notice of disallowance begins the disallowance process under section 19.1 of the Statutory Instruments Act that, if followed through, would force the regulation maker, the Governor-in-Council in this case, to repeal the regulations.

Ultimately, the committee instructed the joint chairs to send a letter to the minister to request an update on the repeal, and to indicate that the committee would consider issuing a notice of disallowance should members not be satisfied with the status of the repeal by today’s meeting.

The minister’s response, received Friday evening, states that while he regrets that the repeal has remained outstanding, the department’s focus on addressing firearms violence has necessarily resulted in other work being prioritized, namely, the implementation of the former Bill C-21, which received Royal Assent in December 2023.

The minister further assures that the regulations will be repealed as soon as possible, and that he intends on advancing the repeal sometime in 2024 or 2025, as indicated on the department’s current Forward Regulatory Plan.

While the Minister’s words here are encouraging, the letter is still somewhat vague and does not otherwise provide the committee with any information that it did not already know.

It is up to members now to consider whether they find the minister’s response satisfactory or if they wish to issue the notice of disallowance.

If members find the response satisfactory, then counsel can continue to monitor the progress of the repeal with the department.

If members are not satisfied and wish to issue the notice of disallowance, the same draft notice from last month’s meeting has been included in the supporting materials for consideration. As was also noted at last month’s meeting, if the committee decides to issue the notice of disallowance, then the committee must wait at least 30 calendar days before it can proceed to the next step and consider a report containing a resolution for the disallowance of these regulations.

Given the current date and parliamentary calendar, this means that the committee could only consider that report after the summer adjournment. However, this would simply give the department the summer to make progress on the repeal. The committee could then, in the fall, consider whether it would still be necessary to adopt the report.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I have MP Johns first. To those online, if you raise your hand as Mr. Noormohamed has done right now, please do keep them up. If you put them down, I will basically put you to the back of the line again.

You have the floor, MP Johns.

Mr. Johns: Well, the good news is we now have the attention of the minister by putting a deadline on these things. That is a good start for this committee. I think putting deadlines is key, but the vague 2024-25 is not what we’re going to be looking for from ministers when we write to them. We need a firm timeline. This just keeps the thing going from 2017. What I liked about the Antarctic one is they said we would have this sorted out by September. That’s the comparable. We need hard deadlines from these ministers and their departments. When we’re sending them a letter from this committee, we need to know the timeline. It can’t be some vague off in the distance, before the end of 2025. That could be 2029, literally. There is no way around it.

I think we’re making some progress. It’s clearly not enough but I wanted to highlight that. I don’t know about the disallowance. I want to hear from everyone around here if there is any new information. We got a response from the minister, but that response is not good enough as far as I’m concerned.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I want to highlight counsel’s ability to take the Friday night letter and to make sure it’s in the report for us today.

Mr. Davidson: I tend to agree with my colleague from the NDP. We’re at seven years. Is it great that we had breaking news? The letter came, yes. I was under the inclination that the banner tagline was “build back better.” However, we still don’t have a date and they can’t walk and chew gum because they stated they are dealing with other issues.

Regarding the vagueness of 2004 or 2025, we need a specific date. I really don’t think that’s too much to ask anyone that disagrees with them based on when this committee meets. That would basically give them — and I’ll defer to our clerks or legal counsel as to when that date would be — all summer. I don’t think we’re going to meet again. I think they will have all summer to figure out a specific date. I wouldn’t think that is too onerous if you have four months to figure out a date. It should be sooner than later. That would be my take on this, chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Hopefully, the time they’re not contemplating is October 31, 2025.

Mr. Noormohamed: I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr. Davidson who decided that he wanted to keep up with a slogan so let’s go there. Instead of asking for the facts, I suggest we write back to the minister and say, “By the end of this session, we’d like a date.” If that is unsatisfactory, then we can look at other means, but it might make sense for us to go back with a short amount of time for the department to come back to us with a response as to what that date might actually be. We can then make our decision accordingly. That would be my suggestion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Trudel: I’m always a bit flabbergasted by the lack of responses provided in all our files. We’re always dealing with endless wait times or responses that never quite seem to meet our expectations. The delays are always endless. We’re still trying to decide whether to accept the minister’s statement that “you’ll be waiting a while longer.” Do we find his time frame acceptable?

It makes no sense to me. The delays are always outrageous. I gather that this process has been going on for seven years. In some files, it has been going on for 25 years. We’re involved in administrative management processes that make absolutely no sense. We spend our meetings managing things. I think that sometimes we should really put our foot down. Otherwise, we’re wasting our time waiting for the minister to bother to respond. I find the minister’s response unacceptable. We’re saying that “we’ve sent letters three or four times now.”

It’s time to put our foot down. Otherwise, we won’t get anywhere. We’re just dealing with deadlines that never get met. Are the options to send a notice of disallowance or to summon the minister? That’s our choice this morning?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I will leave it to the members to decide what to do.

Mr. Louis: I think we are making progress. Obviously, if you look at the long timeline, it’s not there. We have a letter from the minister, but I’m not happy with that answer as far as the specifics of that letter.

I believe that if we send a clarifying letter with a very short timeline, as was suggested — before we break for the summer — and if we can get an answer about a timeline for a clarifying date, I think we would get the result we want.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I am willing to do whatever the committee wants, but let’s be mindful that even if we send even a 30-day deadline, we essentially won’t be meeting until the fall. Just be mindful of that.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: I understood from the last conversation we had that the notice of disallowance gives a certain trajectory and a certain timeline so that the minister and the department can respond to say, “Before you actually proceed, here is what we plan to do,” and then we would reconvene and decide whether we actually proceed with disallowance. The last time we had this conversation as to whether we even proceed with the notice last time, we instead landed on a letter and a sort of final letter.

Could counsel walk through the timeline? We issue the notice, then we have an opportunity to reconvene, and assuming we get more details from the minister and the department in the meantime, we obviously can opt not to proceed. Just walk me through that timeline.

Mr. Hilton: If the committee were to issue the notice today, the committee would have to wait 30 days before it could meet again to consider a report containing the resolution for the disallowance of the regulations. After those 30 days, the committee would meet, but it is not obligated to adopt the report. It could take into account any information that the minister or department could provide within those 30 days, or over the summer, given that the committee could only conceivably next meet in the fall.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Does that answer your question, MP Erskine-Smith?

Mr. Erskine-Smith: Yes. Whether it’s the letter or the notice now, I don’t care too much. At the end of the day, we’re meeting again in the fall. If we issued a notice now, we would be meeting again in the fall and, presumably, if the department gets their act together with a specific date and we understand the real timeline, then we don’t proceed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay. That is an alternative method here. Instead of another strongly worded letter, it would be the strongest letter we can write, which is a notice of disallowance, and have the sword of Damocles over the department’s head.

[Translation]

Senator Dalphond: When does the committee plan to meet again? Is another meeting scheduled before the June adjournment?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): We currently have not held a meeting in June. That can be looked at if members are interested. At the end of the June, it is typically a very dicey time for parliamentarians.

Senator Dalphond: We could meet again two weeks from now. It would not be the end of June. If we are open to meeting again before we break, there is still one week left in May and another week of June. I would be inclined to reply to the minister that the answer is not really satisfactory, but the committee is looking for a firm commitment with specific dates and would like to get the answer from the minister before the following date, which would be the date we’re going to meet again, sometime at the beginning of June.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I have been told that we have June 10 as a potential meeting date for scheduling, so that is a possibility. Senator, you may perhaps want to elaborate on what frame you would look at — a strongly worded letter saying that if we don’t have an answer by June 10, then we will adopt a notice of disallowance.

Senator Dalphond: Yes, I think there is some movement, but I want to force some further movement. Thank you, there seem to be some things, but we need more than that. We need a firm commitment about dates, so please report before our next meeting on June 10; otherwise we will proceed to a notice of disallowance.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I see some nodding of heads to Senator Dalphond’s proposal. Let’s hear from MP Davidson — I don’t have anyone else after that — and if there is no further discussion, we can perhaps come together to a consensus.

Mr. Davidson: I tend to agree — thinking with my colleague from the Liberal and the Bloc — that we should proceed, given the timeline with a disallowance notice; otherwise we’re punting the ball again. In the meantime, the next time the committee meets, they could give a letter with the satisfactory date or more information. I think to send another letter at this time just waters this committee down to a subcommittee for Canada Post sending letters. I would tend to think that if we’re going to have any force — we sat here last meeting, and I compromised with everyone to send this letter. We didn’t move ahead with disallowance, and now we’re saying we’re going to send another letter. Seriously?

This department, I have to tell you, said they couldn’t give a date, they couldn’t get it done in seven years, and now they have Bill C-21 — the federal public service has been increased by 40%. Think about that. At the bare minimum, we should be getting 40% more results. They could have at least turned this. So I’m on the side with my Liberal colleague and my Bloc colleague to move with disallowance.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): We have two proposals. One is to go with disallowance now, the other, which Senator Dalphond mentioned, would be two weeks. We’ll just finish this up.

Senator Dalphond: Maybe correct me, but I think we don’t have the same understanding. MP Davidson proposed we send a notice, but then we have to wait 30 days, which means it’s going to be way beyond June 10. They know that, and those who receive the notice will know that, which means we’re going to look at the report somewhere in the fall. In the meantime, they have not committed to doing anything.

I would prefer that we force them to commit to something rather than leave them in limbo. We know what that means; it means seven years, so far.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Again, senator, we would give them effectively two weeks if the letter went out today. There does seem to be two proposals.

Mr. Noormohamed: It gives simplicity. I am very much in favour of the idea of sending them a letter asking them to give us a date, tell them we have a meeting on June 10 and be done with it.

With the idea Mr. Davidson has about issuing a notice, while lovely, I would respectfully disagree that it is the best way to do it. All we’re going to do is prolong this and push this to the fall, as Senator Dalphond said, and we’ll be back where we are now. I don’t know why we wouldn’t tell them to come back to us with a date, let’s be done with this, and we can try to wrap this up by the summer.

Mr. Johns: I would like to go with the senator’s idea, because we have June 10 to come back here, and then we could move on nuclear. If we don’t like the date — the date is October 2025 — then what are we doing? They need to come back with something real. I think they’re going to get the message from this meeting that we want to see this accelerated so we can get it off our books. I like that idea that we come back and decide to go nuclear or not on June 10.

Mr. Davidson: We should talk about it right now. What is the date? If we’re going to send a letter, what is the date? Why are we asking them for the date? I don’t understand that.

Senator Dalphond: We are coming back on June 10 and we are asking them to commit to a plan, in the meantime, and on specific dates.

Mr. Davidson: On a plan — why don’t we tell them the date? We want this done by October.

We’re going to send a letter, they’re going to come back with a date — February 2025 — and then we’re all going to sit here again and say, “Well, they should really do it by December. Way better send another letter to see if they can do it.” This goes on and on. Just tell them the date. Say that you want it done by October 1. That’s it. Why are we asking them for a date? This is bizarre.

Mr. Louis: I would agree that this idea about asking for a date by June 10 gives us a chance to see if we are happy with the date. This would still have to go through order-in-council and cabinet. That’s not going to happen right away. If we were to issue disallowance now, we wouldn’t even hear until September, as the senator said. If we receive the answer we need before June 10, we are done. That sounds to me like the best option — ask for that by June 10, and we can be finished before the summer. If for some reason we are unsatisfied with the date, we can cross that bridge when we get there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Your joint chairs are happy to do whichever course of action you decide. It’s just a question of which course. MP Johns, hopefully you can convince everyone.

Mr. Johns: I agree with Mr. Davidson. We need to give them a date. I would say that perhaps counsel could give us an idea of what the timeline looks like. We could say December 31, but if we say January 17 then gives them a few more weeks into the new year. That way, we come back and it’s either done or it’s not. December 31 is a hard one. If we give them a little bit of time in January, it is no skin off our backs because we don’t meet again until the end of January. If they don’t have it done, we go to disallowance. I think that seems reasonable. It’s like a hard deadline.

If we go to June, there’s no point, and there’s an election. It could carry on into the next government. We don’t want this to get into the next government. Let’s make it clear that we want to get this resolved in this government.

[Translation]

Mr. Trudel: My question ties in with my colleague’s comments about how we won’t receive a response to our notice of disallowance until September. I’m not sure that I understand the procedure. If we send a notice of disallowance, we don’t expect a response. We’re just saying that we aren’t happy. Maybe I’ve missed something. Can anyone clarify this for me?

Mr. Hilton: If we send a notice of disallowance, the department isn’t required to respond. It simply means that, next time the committee looks at the file, it must consider the fact that the department didn’t respond.

They may also say that they’ll repeal the regulations by a certain date.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I would like to point out that we would have more leverage if we were to put a notice of disallowance. It’s up to us to pull that pin, as counsel said earlier.

I’m still looking for some consensus because we seem to be battering between a strongly worded letter with a request for a date, and if we are not happy with the date then we will do notice, or a notice of disallowance and try to force the government to be reasonable or come back with a date.

Mr. Noormohamed: Perhaps in the spirit of trying to get things moving, we might send a letter saying that we want this done by December 31, 2024. If everyone can agree on that date — let’s say this is the date we want — then put it in the letter. If they tell us to pound sand then we can go to disallowance. If they say yes, then we know when it’s happening. That should take care of Mr. Davidson’s concern that it’s not getting dragged out until the election. It takes care of everyone’s concern that if you think about what disallowance might mean in terms of a time frame, this is a reasonable amount of time in which the bureaucracy can do what it needs to do. It is done this calendar year rather than the next one, and we can put a pin in this thing.

Mr. Davidson: I have a question for legal counsel. The notice of disallowance will take care of this problem because it will get rid of the regulations. Am I correct? No?

Mr. Hilton: The notice of disallowance is simply a notice that is sent to the minister advising of the committee’s intent of considering a report containing a resolution for the repeal of the regulations. After the notice is sent, the committee must wait 30 days before it can consider that report. The idea is to provide the department or regulation maker 30 days to provide a response or to make any progress on the repeal. The department is not obligated to respond. The committee could take that into account the next time it meets if the minister has not provided a response.

Mr. Davidson: But it is going to make them act — that’s what I’m saying. It should. What is disallowance for if it doesn’t make them act?

Mr. Hilton: That’s the intention behind the notice of disallowance, as the committee has seen —

Mr. Davidson: This could be a cry for help from them. Maybe that’s why they sent the letter. They may want disallowance so they can get it done. I’m not kidding.

Mr. Hilton: The intent behind the notice of disallowance is to spur the department once and for all into making the changes or the repeal requested by the committee.

Mr. Davidson: That’s what I’m saying. They may be asking for that in a roundabout way by not giving solid dates and not doing what we have asked.

Mr. Hilton: I wouldn’t be able to comment on that.

Mr. Davidson: I’m saying we maybe should throw them a lifeline here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): So far, it seems either discussion between a letter stating — as Mr. Noormohamed had suggested — that December 31 or sooner is the committee’s drop-dead date on repeal. If we are not satisfied, if they are going to give us anything out of that, then we will move to notice of disallowance. The other option — as MP Davidson has said — is a notice of disallowance and to simply see what the department does in response. As counsel said, once that notice is there and that courtesy has been given, they have 30 days in which they can remediate the situation or try to resolve it.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: I support the idea of a letter because it sets a drop-dead date. I think a notice of disallowance would probably be fine too, but this arrives at the same solution. In the interests of all our time and the time of Parliament, can we do it such that when we issue this demand, as it were, and if we receive a letter committing to December 2024, can we make sure we don’t have a meeting on June 10? I don’t want to talk about this anymore. Can we just deal with it and not come back on June 10 if we have the letter in hand?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): If we agree to do the letter as MP Erskine-Smith has suggested and we get a response in the positive before then, I’m sure the joint chairs would gladly not have the meeting.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: You are right. Keep up the good work.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you for the encouragement.

[Translation]

Mr. Trudel: I tend to agree with my colleague, Mr. Davidson. I think that it’s time to put our foot down and send a message. If we issue a notice of disallowance — it’s the Department of Public Safety — maybe this would convey an overall message from our committee. We want to say that we’re tired of things dragging on and of receiving responses of this nature. They tell us, “in a few months; we don’t know; we’re thinking; we’re taking your comments into account, but the deadlines keep us quite busy.” I can’t believe Mr. LeBlanc’s letter. We’re all busy. It’s no excuse.

As Mr. Davidson said, the public service now has more officials. However, we’re still hearing these types of excuses. Sorry, but if we want to be taken seriously, it’s time to put our foot down.

I would be in favour of sending a notice of disallowance. We’re tired of things dragging on and we’re tired of discussing deadlines, letters, and so on.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Usually, this committee operates on a consensus basis, and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus here. I have only seen it a few times in my career where we have actually had to call a vote. I’m really reluctant to do that because I find this group very complementary and very consensus oriented. However, we do have a bit of an impasse here.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I want to roll out the calendar. Even after the adoption of a report to disallow — which at the earliest would take place in September when we first meet — there has to be a report tabled in both the House and the Senate. That is deemed adopted, but it has to wait 15 days before it can be in effect. After the 15 days, there is another 30 days — I understand — for the report. Is that correct?

Mr. Hilton: If the report is deemed adopted or adopted outright in both the House and the Senate, the regulation maker — the Governor-in-Council in this case — would be compelled to repeal the regulations within 30 days.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): My point is that 30 plus 15 is 45 days. You would trigger the adoption of the report in the House and the Senate probably in late September; 45 days would take you to sometime in November — probably close to December. If we were to propose an end-of-the-year drop-dead deadline, it would have the same effect as going through the process just simply because of the way the timelines work. Therefore, if we were to issue a letter that says we would like this done by the end of the year, it would essentially have the same effect as a disallowance today.

Mr. Davidson: I don’t want to waste any more time, as per what my colleague suggests. However, I would only say, Mr. Chair, that the point of disallowance is for this committee to have some strength. Right now, we just continually send letters. Why even have the committee then? Seriously. This is a time now — we had this meeting last time. We got a vague response and everyone was saying, “Oh great, they got back to us.” You know what? It is still nothingness. It has been seven years, people. No one listens to this committee. I get it; it’s boring. But I’m just saying that if someone was listening to this, they would say, “After eight years, you’re still not doing anything?” I’m sorry.

Mr. Louis: I appreciate Senator Woo walking us through that timeline, because the timeline of the results might be the same, but in everyone’s best interests, if we send this letter with that hard deadline of the end of the year and ask for a response by or before June 10, we could go into the summer knowing this is done. I’m sure my colleague would agree that it is better to know for a fact than punting it down the road and saying, “Let’s think about this until September.” That’s a reasonable answer. The timelines being the same, the hard deadlines and saying we want to hear by June 10 — I think that strikes a balance.

Thank you.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: Mr. Davidson and Mr. Trudel, I am roughly on the same page. I would just say that if you issue the notice of disallowance today, it is going to take us into the fall anyway by the time we consider it. If the timing were different — if we were in April right now — I would say issue the notice of disallowance. We would just be killing time. However, the fact is that if we issue it today or on June 10, it makes not a lick of difference for our purposes. We are going to come back and consider it in the fall. If we can get a response back and we don’t spin our wheels on June 10, and if we don’t spend further time talking about this and get a firm date, that saves us all time. Therefore, I am game for a strongly worded letter, issuing the notice of disallowance on June 10 and wasting our time then if we need to. But hopefully, we get a letter back with a firm date and away we go.

Because of the way the calendar is, if we operate on consensus and get this done, you might get your way on June 10 and we do disallowance, or you might get your way and you get a commitment for the end of the year. Either way, I don’t think we should keep fighting about it. We’re getting to the same place no matter what.

Senator Dalphond: I guess we are all quite unhappy with the situation. All these reports are about things that happened 5, 7 or 10 years ago. We are always dealing with the past and always getting the same types of answers. Yes, we are busy. Yes, there was the pandemic. Yes, we have been doing another law. Yes, we have been reforming other regulations. They are always good excuses. I’m quite frustrated. I have been here for over two years, and we are always hearing the same kind of music.

I want to achieve results, not in order to show the power of this committee but for results for Canadians — to make sure the regulatory system is better for them. Today, considering the agenda we have and what the time frame is going to be — whatever we do, we have to comply with the statutory law and provide a time frame — I think there should be a way to achieve a better result for Canadians and not make our displeasure even more known. They know our displeasure. These letters are full of expressions of displeasure.

What was not said is that if we issue the notice of disallowance, we will not be able to consider the report on June 10 because we need 30 days, which means we’ll be at the end of September or early October debating again whether to issue a report or not. If we do issue a report, it is going to go to both houses, and both houses must have 15 sitting days to consider. For the Senate, that means five weeks. So we are not in October. Instead, we are somewhere in the middle or end of November, because we meet three days a week more or less — except odd weeks — and we have a week off here and there. It is going to be November before the whole thing can be debated in both chambers. Then we are going to say, “Until December, otherwise you are dead.” It makes no sense. It’s going to be dead because either both chambers will adopt the motions or one of the motions will not be adopted, and that would be the end of it. It will not have achieved anything for Canadians.

If we send a strongly worded letter and say that we are meeting again on June 10 and would like to know if you can make it and have the regulations in place by the end of this year, then I guess we do make progress.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I appreciate your focus on results and the frustration to be had sometimes. Could it be — and I’m just throwing it out there as a possible path forward — that we issue a notice of disallowance with the agreement here that we will not look at this issue again until the fall? Also, the joint chairs will write a letter to the minister’s office — so it would be two separate letters; maybe we could even put the notice of disallowance and have a cover letter for that — advising that if the committee does not hear back with a drop-dead date that this can be done by December 31, then we will do as appropriate before we rise for the Christmas break. That way, we don’t have to meet on June 10. That way, we give the minister the ability to respond, and we don’t have to discuss this issue further today.

I just bring this up because I think we all agree that the timelines are almost identical. It’s just a question of whether we want to have another meeting and send another letter, because we did say in our last communication to the minister we would give one strong letter followed by a notice of disallowance.

Mr. Johns: I want to hear a bit more. I want to hear from Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Davidson: I’ll make it short. I understand everyone’s opinions about the timeline. But remember one thing with disallowance. The timeline is the same, but with disallowance we have teeth. When I left the last meeting, I was under the impression that was the final letter. That’s why I came to consensus with everyone and said that after this, we are moving for disallowance. This is like Groundhog Day for me. The timeline may be the same but no legislative teeth at all. It’s a farce.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I think we can rein in the language at this point.

Senator Dean: I was just going to suggest that you might want to test consensus at this point based on your recommendation, because my sense is that we are pretty much there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay. So just to repeat for all members of the joint standing committee, we would write a notice of disallowance, as has been laid out in your report from counsel. On top of that, the joint chairs will deliver a second letter, like a cover letter, that says the ball is in the minister’s court and that we want to see in writing a firm date of repeal of these regulations that we have an issue with by December 31, 2024. If we do not see that to be forthcoming, the minister continues at his peril in terms of the regulations.

Senator Dean, thank you for pushing on that.

To be clear, no further meeting would be required. Are we all comfortable with that? Alright. Thank you, members.

[Translation]

SOR/2010-107 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CLASS II NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND PRESCRIBED EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 18B:1)

Mr. Hilton: The committee members will recall that this file was also discussed by the committee at last month’s meeting. At the time, the joint chairs were instructed to write to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources about how long it would take to make the two remaining amendments in this file. These amendments concern the unnecessary discretionary power granted to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to certify and decertify radiation safety officers.

Amendments regarding these issues were first promised six years ago, in 2018. However, since then, the amendments have been constantly postponed. A response from the minister was received last Thursday. The response basically just says that, since the commission made the regulations, it will address the joint chairs’ letter. The commission responded 10 days ago. In its letter, the commission seems to downplay the importance of the amendments. It states that the amendments simply aim to make the regulations clearer and that the delay in implementing them doesn’t affect the safety of Canadians, since the commission must still certify and decertify radiation safety officers using an administrative regulatory manual.

The commission then states that its regulatory policy team has focused instead on issues directly related to nuclear safety, security and regulatory readiness.

While these goals are important, the amendments requested by the committee concern more than just clarity.

By suggesting that these amendments simply amount to drafting issues, the commission is ignoring the true nature of the committee’s concerns. As things stand, the certification and decertification of radiation safety officers aren’t governed by legislation, but by a non-legally binding administrative document that can be amended at will.

As a result, the provisions concerning certification and decertification have little impact. Decisions under these provisions are made on a case-by-case basis. This means that people in similar situations may be treated differently.

Regardless of how the commission wants to categorize the nature of the amendments, the scale of the current issue stems from the fact that the commission made a promise to the committee in 2018 and has yet to follow through on that promise.

Although the commission states in its letter that the work on the promised amendments is proceeding as part of a wider regulatory modernization initiative, the prepublication timetable has once again been pushed back, this time to fall 2026. This means that the final publication of the amendments probably won’t take place until 2027.

Remember, the committee used to generally consider two years a reasonable time frame for making the promised amendments. However, in this case, the committee must consider that the amendments were first promised almost 10 years ago.

The committee members must now decide whether they find the commission’s letter satisfactory — in which case legal counsel can continue to keep track of the progress of these amendments — or whether they want to take further action, such as inviting the minister and/or commission officials to appear before the committee.

If the committee members want to invite the minister, we should keep in mind that, in last Thursday’s letter, the minister seemed to distance himself from the commission’s operations. The minister stated that the commission is an independent regulatory body and that he doesn’t have a formal approval process for developing regulations under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Under these conditions, it isn’t certain that the minister will agree to appear before the committee.

Of course, we could always invite commission officials to the committee or, as I said, have legal counsel continue to keep track of the progress of these amendments.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Counsel has made the report. Thank you again for incorporating various letters that came in rather tight. Who would like to start us off with the discussion on how best to proceed? I think Senator Dean had pushed early to have this raised. Are you satisfied?

Senator Dean: No, particularly since we are hearing from counsel that these are matters that go beyond administrative language issues and actually go to the practical aspects of training, certification and who does what under certain circumstances. That’s what I’m understanding from this.

My point at the last meeting was that while we hold everything that comes before us as important, those things that could potentially affect the public or worker health and safety are ones that we should obviously give priority to. So I would lean toward the most aggressive form of response. That’s my own sense.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Senator, what form of response? Would it be a strongly worded letter, a notice of disallowance or an invitation to come and educate the committee as to why it should take till 2026 to address the amendments we’ve required?

Senator Dean: I would be inclined to send out the invitation and, alongside it, a strong message of disallowance. Let me put it this way: Unless we are satisfied by the discussion that we have with representatives of the commission, a notice of disallowance will be issued. If it is the will of this committee that we proceed with the disallowance in parallel with that, I’m fine with that as well.

Mr. Carrie: I want to thank Senator Dean for his comments. As somebody who lives between two nuclear plants, the timeline has come to an end. I would recommend that we do a letter of disallowance. This is something the public is interested in, especially now. Mr. Chair, I think, as part of the government’s overall approach to lowering emissions, we have to pay particular attention to the nuclear file. As Senator Dean has said, we need to make a strong statement here. Thank you, senator, for your comments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I’m wondering what the health and safety implications are of the repeal of the regulation if we go whole hog and whether a regulatory void that is not filled quickly might have implications that we do not want to encounter.

This is a technical issue, perhaps, but can counsel help us understand that?

Mr. Hilton: You are correct. There would be a legal vacuum in this case, unlike in the consideration of disallowance in the previous item. Should the committee proceed with the disallowance of these provisions, the repeal would get rid of the provisions that allow for radiation safety officers to be certified and decertified. The expectation for the department would be for the provisions as they are currently drafted to be repealed but then simultaneously re-enacted without the deficiencies identified by the committee so that there would not be any legal vacuum.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): On that point, it’s not uncommon to go to Gazette III with emergency regulations. Is that the right tool at the right time?

A notice of disallowance would go to the minister. Again, we don’t have to necessarily proceed. We could see what the regulator has to say. Maybe we take the same approach as we did to Item 1, where the joint chairs could write to the regulator outlining that we’re not satisfied with the timeline presented, that we have ongoing concerns and that we would like to see them address it sooner. Then let them stew in it over the summer and see what they come up with in the minister’s office.

That’s just my suggestion.

Mr. Louis: Senator Dean said what I was thinking. That sounds reasonable. I was going to ask for the timelines because you mentioned you wanted the right tool at the right time. If this were a different time of year, if we weren’t coming to the end of the session, maybe we would make a different decision. What you’re saying now gives us a chance to hear back from them as soon as possible. It’s the right tool at the right time without leaving that void, which is what no one wants.

Mr. Davidson: Thanks to the counsel for the report. Since I’ve been on this committee, that was one of the most damning reports I’ve heard you read, which is concerning to me. Again, to my colleagues, this is much like Item 1. For Canadians, the first one dealt with firearms; this one deals with nuclear. As my colleague from Oshawa rightly pointed out about nuclear safety, it was concerning to me when you said that two Canadians can be treated differently by the current regulations. That is disturbing, again, after 10 years — and Item 1 was 7 years; this is 10 years — so I would point to that.

It’s concerning that the regulator downplayed this for quote in your report. The minister was trying to distance himself from this. To say, “Well, we’ll send a letter and we’ll put disallowance underneath it again like Item 1,” again, these are firearm issues. These are nuclear issues. Either you have teeth or you don’t have teeth.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay. Testing the consensus here, the committee would write a notice of disallowance. We would send that to the minister’s office as the first step of a very long process. We would also write to the regulators as the joint chairs and outline that the committee was not satisfied with the process laid out, and we would like to hear from them in the fall. We want a response by, let’s say, September 1, outlining if they’re going to rework their plans and our concerns on a much more rapid schedule. Okay?

Mr. Louis: For clarity — this is new to me — are you saying that disallowance is sent or doesn’t get sent unless we don’t hear a response?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): No. We would send a notice of disallowance. That’s the first step of a multi-tiered process. The ball is now in their court to response.

By “respond,” I mean the minister may suddenly become much more interested in the regulator’s activities. We also advise the regulator that we’re not satisfied with the plan to have it part of a phased-in process by 2026.

Mr. Louis: Does that create the void that you had mentioned, counsel? No?

Mr. Hilton: No. Issuing the notice would not create that void. It just puts the department and the minister on notice that after 30 days, the committee has the power to consider a report containing a resolution for the disallowance of these two provisions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): We would have many conversations before we get there.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: I’m fine with all that in the same way we proceeded with Item 1. The difference is in Item 1, we had a sense of what we wanted to hear back so that we would not proceed with disallowance. In this case, I’m not really sure exactly is there something specific we are looking for as far as the timeline goes or are we just keeping it open-ended?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I leave it to the committee, MP Erskine-Smith. If we want to include an accelerated timeline, I’m more than happy to do so. We are your joint chairs. We work for you.

Senator Dalphond: On the last point, I think you suggested that they report back to us by September 1. Before doing a report for one, I would like to hear from the officials from this commission because they are quite involved in the operation. When I hear there are some concerns, I would like them to come here to explain. Hopefully by September 1, they will come up with answers. If not, before doing the report, I would like to hear from them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Absolutely appropriate, senator. A very good suggestion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): There is a mismatch between the 30-day clock and hearing from them in September. If they come in September, the 30-day clock will have expired already. It’s a bit of a contradiction. We may have the 30-day clock expire where they don’t provide a suitable response and then we trigger disallowance. Maybe it’s best to hear from them first, before we trigger the disallowance. Otherwise, you’ve created a situation where whatever they say may have been superseded by them not having a response within 30 days.

Senator Dalphond: On that point, we have to do the report. Before we do the report, we can hear witnesses. So we send a notice of disallowance. The minister’s office is going to say something like it’s about the commission and I cannot do anything; they’re independent. Then we could decide we want to hear from the commission before we finalize our report. I’m less concerned about that. But if we don’t trigger the machines, it will never be triggered. I think it sends a powerful message. That’s why I rally to the suggestion of MP Davidson on the first point because I think it sends a powerful message that the notice of disallowance is only one step in a long process of five steps, but it triggers the process.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): What I would hope, Senator Dalphond, is that we would write this letter to the regulator. The regulator would obviously respond as soon as possible, perhaps with a much more aggressive timeline that we may find suitable and then we just decide not to go any further. If they come back without very much of a response, I think asking the officials to come in would be entirely in order. It’s up to us to see how we want to proceed from there, if at all.

Testing this once again, by September 1, we would expect a full response, a revamped plan that would accelerate this much sooner than 2026, as well as a notice of disallowance to the minister’s office. And then we’ll take it when we get back in September.

Mr. Louis: I’m just looking for clarity. A full response from whom?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): From the regulator.

Mr. Louis: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): The minister has already said that he’s not in charge of them; they’re independent. That’s fine. Again, this committee’s notices go to the minister so they are aware.

That’s excellent. Thank you. We will move on. I think we have enough guidance there.

[Translation]

SOR/2003-363 — ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 18C:1)

Mr. Hilton: The last time that the committee looked at this file, in May 2023, legal counsel was instructed to send a letter to the Department of the Environment. The letter intended to express frustration at the amount of time taken to make the latest amendments in this file, which were first promised in December 2015, and to say that the committee members would consider all the options available to them the next time that this file is presented to the committee should they not be satisfied with the state of the amendments at that time.

For context, the outstanding amendments concern the provisions of the regulations that set out various prohibitions and obligations regarding waste management in Antarctica.

Unfortunately, the situation seems to have declined with regard to these amendments.

In its August 2023 response, the department apologizes for the delay in moving this file forward and explains that a number of factors, including the pandemic, had played a part.

However, it adds that other amendments are now needed to reflect changes made to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

The department points out that, since the regulations are Canada’s instrument to implement the protocol, the amendments requested by the committee must be made at the same time as the amendments related to the protocol. Otherwise, the department expressed concern that the lack of consistency between the protocol and Canada’s instrument could jeopardize the country’s reputation, or even affect the acceptance of its request to obtain consultative party status to the Antarctic Treaty.

Mr. Trudel: I’ll raise a point of order. I think that bells are ringing in the House right now. I believe that unanimous consent is required to continue committee business when bells are ringing in the House. I don’t mind giving it, but it must be requested.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Just hold on. Let me check with the clerks, please. The clerk is saying that we have not received formal notice, but we will confer and check. Thank you. As soon as we confirm that, we will then test what the will is of the committee.

Counsel, please continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Hilton: The department finishes its letter by stating that a review of the regulations and protocol is under way and that it plans to finish drafting the amendments in May 2024 and to prepublish them by September 2024.

While the department’s explanations and concerns are reasonable, this latest postponement — the fifth in this file — means that the final publication of the amendments will probably take place, at the earliest, 10 years after they were promised.

Again, given the track record of this file, we can’t reasonably expect compliance with this new timetable. As a result, the committee members may wish to consider all the options available to prevent further postponements.

Option 1 involves the joint chairs sending a letter to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Option 2 involves inviting the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and/or departmental officials to appear before the committee. Option 3 involves sending a notice of disallowance to the minister. A draft of this notice has been included in the supporting documents.

As committee members can see from the draft notice, the disallowance process wouldn’t just stem from the time taken to make the remaining amendments, but also from the fact that the committee previously found that the provisions subject to the remaining amendments weren’t allowed under their enabling authority.

However, as stated in item 1 of the agenda for today’s meeting, the disallowance process can’t be completed before the summer adjournment. It would simply be continued in the fall.

Lastly, the members may, of course, find the update provided by the department satisfactory. In this case, legal counsel could continue to keep track of the progress of the amendments and report back to the committee in due course.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you, counsel. I see everyone is deep in thought. Does anyone have any thoughts on the Antarctic Regulations?

Mr. Carrie: With the other two issues that we’ve already dealt with, I think everyone on committee is troubled with the delays and with what we just heard. We may have even regressed. We’ve already written a letter, and I think option 3 could motivate the environment minister to introduce amendments in the fall, but I think we must be realistic about things, assuming this is being allowed before the summer break.

If colleagues don’t agree with sending a letter, maybe we should look at option 1 and set a new deadline of September for the Gazette I — the draft regulations — and warn them that failing to meet this deadline will result in the notice of disallowance.

Mr. Louis: Similar to what was just suggested, I was going to say sending a letter by the end of September to give people time to respond. If we don’t hear back by the end of September, then we’ll step things up. We’ve shown here that that’s what we’re doing. I was thinking that a timeline of around the end of September would make sense.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): They’ve promised prepublication by September. We will know because we can see if it has happened.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): This is the only proposal we have right now. MP Carrie could you repeat your options?

Mr. Carrie: As I said, we could do the letter — option 3 — and hopefully that will get motivation going, but if not, we write the letter to the minister and set a new deadline of September, warning him that failing to meet it will result in a notice of disallowance.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): In the latter case, we would write to the minister and instruct him that the committee is anxiously awaiting the introduction of the new regulations, and if not, he will hear from us because we are running out of patience. Alright? I’m seeing nodding. That is fine.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): We will move on to the next item. I turn to our counsel Stephanie Feldman.

SOR/94-276 — CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 18D:1)

Stephanie Feldman, Counsel to the Committee: Since the last presentation of this file, the Joint Committee has been provided with an update on the progress of amendments to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations amendment.

For the benefit of our new committee members, I will provide a very brief history of this file. More than 25 years ago, the joint committee identified inconsistencies in the wording of 11 provisions of these regulations. In 1997, the Department of National Defence agreed to make the necessary amendments. However, since then, delays have arisen for a variety of reasons.

Last November, the Minister of National Defence appeared before the joint committee alongside departmental officials following the issuance of a notice of disallowance on May 5, 2023. He informed the joint committee that the amendments were on track to be drafted by the end of 2023, with an expected coming into force in 2024.

At that meeting, the joint committee agreed that committee counsel would write to the department on a quarterly basis beginning in January 2024 to seek an update on the progress of the amendments.

As indicated in the briefing note, the joint committee wrote to the department in January and received a response in March indicating that the file was undergoing review and that the amendments “. . . may come into force in late spring or early summer 2024.”

Therefore, if members are satisfied with the department’s response and the progress of this file, counsel could continue to monitor the file’s status and inquire with the department on a quarterly basis. A second letter inquiring about the progress of amendments has already been sent to the department for the second quarter of 2024.

I am in the joint committee’s hands as to next steps.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Comments? We’ve been on their back on this, and counsel has been tracking. The recommendation appears to be that we continue to track.

Mr. Davidson: I would definitely continue to track. Is the notice of disallowance on these still valid?

Ms. Feldman: Yes.

Mr. Davidson: I don’t know how you lightly remind them of that, too.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Option 2 involves another letter to remind them, correct? So the wording could remind them of the various things we’ve done, and then we wait to see what comes in the fall. If it’s not satisfactory, we can take action.

[Translation]

Mr. Trudel: It’s more of a question. It’s a bit like Groundhog Day. We’re still wondering about punishments and how to get answers. We’re dealing with delays. Again, it’s fascinating. For 25 years now, this process has been going on and taking an inordinate amount of time. The notice of disallowance has already been sent out, so we’re past that point.

Could we have the minister arrested? What’s the next step? Do we call the police? I have no idea. After the notice of disallowance, how can we make the minister see that we’re giving him a rap on the knuckles and that we really aren’t happy? What tools can we use to say that we’re really angry, after 25 years, about the amount of stalling in this file?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I think the answer is that we adopt the report on disallowance. That is what we would do; I don’t know if there is an appetite for that now. My sense is that counsel is telling us that there is progress, and they will track it. The file will be brought back in the fall, and then we can take action as appropriate.

If there is no disagreement, let’s move on to the next item.

SOR/2015-81 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE WILD ANIMAL AND PLANT TRADE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 18E:1)

Ms. Feldman: Since the last presentation of this file to the joint committee, the Regulations Amending the Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations were amended by new regulations registered under SOR/2017-123, which will be presented to the joint committee at a later date. The new regulations amend these regulations in response to the joint committee’s comments on this file.

In 2015, a total of 31 issues were raised with Environment and Climate Change Canada; 30 of these issues have been resolved by the new regulations. In relation to the final outstanding issue, which was a French-English discrepancy, in its letter of July 25, 2017, the department explained that the wording in question was chosen to reflect the usage in the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

As such, the department’s response to the last outstanding issue may be considered satisfactory. Therefore, if members are satisfied with the department’s response and the progress of this file in light of the 30 issues that were resolved, the file could be closed.

Mr. Davidson: Close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Okay, great.

SOR/2014-149 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 18F:1)

SOR/2019-212 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 18G:1)

SOR/2015-143 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ON BOARD TRAINS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 18H:1)

SOR/2005-134 — NAVIGATION SAFETY REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-135 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CHARTS AND NAUTICAL PUBLICATIONS REGULATIONS, 1995

SOR/2011-203 — VOYAGE DATA RECORDER REGULATIONS

SOR/2019-100 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NAVIGATION SAFETY REGULATIONS (AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS)

10. SOR/2022-148 — REGULATIONS REPEALING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT

CLOSES: SOR/2018-13 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEMBERS OF PANELS (NAFTA) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 18I:1)

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): This category is “Action Taken,” and we have agreed in the past to not go into each item unless anyone has a specific question to raise. I will just pause to see if anyone wants to intervene. If not, we will move on.

SOR/2018-16 — BY-LAW AMENDING THE CANADIAN PAYMENTS ASSOCIATION BY-LAW NO. 3 — PAYMENT ITEMS AND AUTOMATED CLEARING SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

SOR/2019-349 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD PIPELINE DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATIONS – AUTHORIZATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2020-65 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SI/2020-64 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING “FIRE PREVENTION WEEK”

SI/2021-63 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING “FIRE PREVENTION WEEK”

SI/2022-45 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING “FIRE PREVENTION WEEK”

SI/2021-41 — PROCLAMATION ANNOUNCING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL

SI/2019-102 — PROCLAMATION SUMMONING PARLIAMENT TO MEET ON DECEMBER 5, 2019 (DISPATCH OF BUSINESS)

SI/2020-58 — PROCLAMATION PROROGUING PARLIAMENT TO SEPTEMBER 23, 2020

SI/2020-59 — PROCLAMATION SUMMONING PARLIAMENT TO MEET ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 (DISPATCH OF BUSINESS)

SI/2019-122 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY (1) AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH COUNCIL ACT; AND (2) AS THE APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH COUNCIL FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SI/2021-8 — PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 11, 2021 AS A “NATIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE”

SI/2021-17 — PROCLAMATION REQUESTING TO OBSERVE JANUARY 29 OF EVERY YEAR AS A NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE OF THE QUÉBEC CITY MOSQUE ATTACK AND ACTION AGAINST ISLAMOPHOBIA

SI/2023-16 — PROCLAMATION REQUESTING THAT THE PEOPLE OF CANADA OBSERVE THE FIRST FRIDAY IN JUNE OF EVERY YEAR AS A NATIONAL DAY AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE

SI/2021-2 — PROCLAMATION REQUESTING TO OBSERVE JANUARY 8 OF EVERY YEAR AS A NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE FOR VICTIMS OF AIR DISASTERS

SI/2019-103 — ORDER REPEALING CERTAIN ORDERS IN COUNCIL

SI/2022-36 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SELECT LUXURY ITEMS TAX ACT COME INTO FORCE

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): These are filed under “Statutory Instruments Without Comment.” Even more so than “Action Taken,” we will not be going through the items. However, I will give the members an opportunity to flag any issues they might want to flag.

Seeing none, that brings us to the end of our agenda. I just have a little bit of housekeeping and good news to report, which is that the Senate has agreed, through the intervention of our clerk Sara, to broadcast our proceedings when we have witnesses. That was a motion requested by this committee, and it has been accepted. Thank you, Sara and team, for making that happen.

(The committee adjourned.)