REGS Committee Meeting

---

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, April 17, 2023

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met with videoconference this day at 11:02 a.m. [ET] to review Statutory Instruments.

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

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Good morning, colleagues. It’s a wonderful day to be with all of you here at this meeting of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We’re going to start off by reminding members, because we always have some people who are virtual, that if you don’t have the approved headset as laid out by the House of Commons and Senate, you will retain the right to vote; however, you will not be recognized until the proper device is engaged.

That being said, it is wonderful to see everyone here today, whether you’re in person or online.

We’re going to start off first with item 1 from your package, which has not been before the committee. I will pass it on to Shawn Abel.

U2010-6 — INTERIM ORDERS RESPECTING IDENTITY SCREENING

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 9A:1.)

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: We begin today with a bit of housekeeping. Members may recall from the committee’s meeting on February 13 that two older files relating to interim orders made under the Aeronautics Act were closed. It is recommended that the same be done here for the same reason.

The principal issue raised on this file concerns the practice of making consecutive interim orders under the act on the same subject. In this case, three orders were made in succession. Discussion between the committee and the Department of Transport about this practice was overtaken by other files and is still ongoing. This file, therefore, had been put by the wayside. However, the orders had never been put before the committee for an initial examination, so that is being done now.

This is the final set of older interim orders of this nature that still needed to be placed before the committee.

Other than the issue concerning the making of consecutive orders, two other issues were raised with the department. Under item 2 in the correspondence, counsel suggested that the information provided in the executive recommendation preceding these orders could have been more precise. The recommendation could have specified which purpose applied in this case among those purposes set out in the act for the making of interim orders. The department agreed to do so in the future and, to date, counsel has not had to raise this issue again in respect to other interim orders.

Under the third item, a concern was raised regarding the operation of section 7 and whether it could make the rights of air travellers unduly dependent on a significant amount of subjective decision making by an air carrier. While the department’s reply was not particularly illuminating, these provisions were later replaced by amendments to the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations in a new form and new context. Those regulations will be placed before the committee in the future; thus, there is nothing to pursue on this file. If members agree, the file could therefore be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): This is one of the first files that I studied when I first came on this committee, so it is interesting to see that it still dogs us to this day.

Does anyone have any course of action or questions for counsel?

Mr. Allison: Once again, I want to thank them for paying attention to what’s going on and letting us know. As they said, it should be closed, so I suggest that we should close the file.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Are there any other suggestions? MP Allison has said we should close the file. I see the nodding of heads. I’ll just ask one more time if anyone would like to comment. All right. It sounds like we have a consensus to close the file. Thank you.

Next we will go to item 2 in the package. This hasn’t been seen before the committee.

Mr. Hilton, you’re managing this file. Please begin.

SI/2019-93 — ORDER FIXING THE DAYS ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THAT ACT COME INTO FORCE

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 9B:1.)

Geoffrey Hilton, Counsel to the Committee: We have here another order purporting to fix the coming-into-force date of a particular act — in this case, the Indigenous Languages Act.

The committee has studied this issue frequently; most recently, members may recall they did so at its meeting of February 13. Here, section 50 of the Indigenous Languages Act states that the provisions of the act come into force “on a day or days to be fixed” by order of the Governor-in-Council. Paragraph (a) of this order fixed the coming-into-force date of various provisions of the act as the day in which the order was made, which is okay. There is no objection to coming-into-force orders linking the coming-into-force date of an act to the day on which the order is made.

Paragraph (b) of the order, though, is where we have an issue. Paragraph (b) purported to fix the coming-into-force date of the remaining provisions of the act as the earlier of October 1, 2020, and the day on which a commissioner of Indigenous languages is appointed under section 13 of the act.

The committee has considered, as set out in its Report No. 88, that the power to fix a coming-into-force date requires specifying a date that is known at the time the instrument fixing that date is made.

At the time this order was made on August 28, 2019, it was not yet known whether the provisions of the act listed in paragraph (b) of the order would come into force on October 1, 2020, or sometime before then when a commissioner is appointed under section 13 of the act. So it could not be said that the coming-into-force date of the provisions listed in paragraph (b) was fixed by this order. This, therefore, raised doubts as to whether those provisions were validly brought into force.

When brought to the attention of the Privy Council, it explained first that a reader would be able to know if the provisions listed in paragraph (b) of the order were in force because the coming-into-force date is linked to the occurrence of a specific event, which is the appointment of a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. This, though, misses the point, as the committee was not concerned with whether a reader would be able to eventually determine what date the provisions listed in paragraph (b) came into force. Rather, the issue was that the actual coming-into-force date was not known at the time the order was made, so the provisions’ coming-into-force date was not fixed in accordance with the act.

The Privy Council also explained that the order was drafted in this manner to ensure that the provisions listed in paragraph (b) of the order come into force immediately upon the appointment of the commissioner if the appointment were to occur before October 1, 2020, since many of the provisions related to the office of the commissioner and would, therefore, be needed immediately upon any appointment.

It is not disputed that the provisions related to the commissioner would be needed immediately upon a commissioner’s appointment, but this could have been achieved without resorting to the drafting mechanism used in this order. The full analysis can be found in the briefing note prepared for members, but in short, the order could have simply tied the coming-into-force date of the provisions listed in paragraph (b) to the day the order was made, or the Indigenous Languages Act itself could have provided that the provisions in paragraph (b) only come into force on the appointment of a commissioner.

If members agree, a further letter to the Privy Council could be drafted along the lines just discussed, specifically conveying the committee’s view that the drafting approach used in this order did not need to be taken, as well as seeking confirmation that the Privy Council will avoid this practice in the future.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Do we have any questions or comments?

Mr. Webber: Thank you for the briefing on that. It does appear that the Privy Council does misunderstand the issue put to it. I would absolutely agree and suggest we write the Privy Council Office and inquire whether it considered the recommendations in the report and whether it considered them when drafting these orders. I would agree with you and write that letter.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: I completely agree with your proposal. I think it makes sense. However, I’m curious about the legal consequences of all this. You say that, since the dates have not been set properly, the entire order could eventually be deemed non‑compliant and therefore inoperative. What could be the legal consequences of all this? For example, could the order be challenged and invalidated in its entirety by a court in the very near future?

[English]

Mr. Hilton: That’s essentially it. The issue is that if the provisions were never validly brought into force, then any action taken under those provisions may not be valid. The issue has never been brought before the courts, so it’s still not 100% certain, but the end effect would be that any action taken under the provisions that were purported to be in force were, in fact, not valid.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Just on that point, what is the likelihood of them being tested in court?

Mr. Hilton: I couldn’t say; I don’t know.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Would anyone else like to chime in?

So far we have a suggestion by Mr. Webber to write the Privy Council Office and reiterate the committee’s position. Is that where we want to go? I see a lot of nodding.

We shall move on. The following item has not been seen before the committee.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 9C:1.)

Mr. Abel: These amending regulations resolve nine issues identified by the committee in connection with SOR/2002-227, SOR/2008-202 and SOR/2013-73. These issues involve clarity and consistency of drafting. Three new concerns were raised in connection with these amending regulations. The first involves a typographical error in a footnoted citation, which the department has acknowledged and which does not affect the validity. It is a minor error and unlikely to be repeated in the future.

The department has agreed to make remedial amendments to address two remaining concerns. It indicated in 2019 that these amendments will be included in a miscellaneous amendment regulation package, but the amendments are not yet made. If members wish, counsel could write again to the department to determine when the amendments will be finally completed.

Mr. Morantz: I agree with the course of action recommended, but we do request a further letter be drafted and ask specifically for a clear time frame from the department as to when the amendments will be made.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay. We will write back to the department asking for a clear time frame. Do we want a reply before summer when we rise? I’m seeing nodding. Are those online comfortable? I see a thumbs-up there. Thank you.

Moving on then. Mr. Abel, could you start with the briefing on item 4?

SOR/2016-14 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS ON IRAN

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 9D:1. )

Mr. Abel: These amending regulations address concerns raised by the committee in connection with SOR/2007-44. The amendments to sections 7 to 9 of the regulations remove language that could have been seen to infringe upon the right to free expression and provide qualifiers to a reporting requirement that could have been seen to violate the right against self‑incrimination.

Six new issues were raised regarding these amending regulations. Amendments are promised to deal with three of those issues.

First, these amendments would add a qualifier so that a person must knowingly intend to commit an act prohibited under section 4 or 6 of the regulations, and this would be consistent with other sanctions regulations made under the same act.

Second, these amendments would clarify the scope of products prohibited for sale, supply or transfer under paragraph 4(1)(c).

Third, it would replace the language that grants unnecessary discretion to the minister in carrying out their duties under subsections 10(2) and 11(3).

The three other issues that were raised do not need to be pursued. Under item 3, a question of possible vagueness and overbreadth was disposed of by the committee at its meeting of May 9, 2019, in connection with related files. Under item 5, there was an outstanding deficiency that requires correction. However, this is being pursued in connection with the file on SOR/2019-60 and no longer needs to be dealt with here. Finally, under item 6, subjective language that was identified by committee counsel was removed by amendments made by SOR/2019-60.

All that remains are the promised amendments that address the three items. It is not known when they will be made. If members wish, counsel could write again to the department to seek a time frame for the completion of those amendments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Members of the committee, do you have any questions or comments?

Mr. Allison: I would just like a clarification. This committee met in May 2019 with instructions to move forward, and only one of the issues was addressed. Is that correct? The other three were ignored?

Mr. Abel: At the meeting of May 9, 2019, the committee considered other sanctions files made under the act. An issue concerning possible vagueness and overbreadth had been raised on a wide variety of files and would apply to a wide variety of files because many of these sanctions regulations are drafted using the exact same provisions. This file in particular has not been before the committee before, so the only correspondence and the only workings on this file so far have been communications between counsel and the department.

To finish up what you had asked, it is true that only one issue has been addressed. There are still outstanding promised amendments to deal with three other issues.

Mr. Allison: So the recommendation is to draft a letter with a time frame, making sure we address it. I would wholeheartedly support that. I think that’s something we should move forward with.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Again, it’s not a one-man band, but I’m looking at the rest of our committee, and I see smiles and head nods. I see thumbs up online. All right. It sounds like we have a consensus. We’ll move on.

Mr. Abel, I believe you’re handling this one. Could you please begin your presentation on item 5?

SOR/2020-106 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (COVID-19 — DEEMED REMITTANCE)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 9E:1.)

Mr. Abel: A question arose in the review of these amending regulations as to whether the amendments were intended to have a retroactive effect. While retroactive amendments to the Income Tax Regulations are clearly authorized under the parent act, the retroactive application of a regulatory amendment generally is typically spelled out in clear terms in the coming-into-force provision at the end of an instrument. This was not done so here. Instead, the retroactive application is only apparent upon reading the definition of the term “eligible period” in subsection 153(1.03).

In response to counsel’s questions about this matter, the department explains that this type of amendment to the Income Tax Regulations does not typically include a provision stating a specific date for its coming into force. The department states that this approach is taken in order to avoid confusion relating to the timing of corporate taxation years and how they’re dealt with under the regulations. Although in general it is good practice to make retroactive application clear in a coming-into-force provision, it is not required to do so. Thus, when there is a valid reason to do otherwise, a different approach could be taken in good faith. If members are satisfied with the reply from the department, this file could be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): MP Garon, did you have anything to add? No? Just thinking. Thinking is a good thing. If I was accused of it, I would feel quite good about it.

We had a few people nod on closing the file, so I think we’ll take that as the position of the committee. Is that correct? I want to make sure I’m not abusing my position here. While I’m talking about abuse of the position, I will hand it over to Senator Woo.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you, Mr. Albas. Let’s move on to SOR/2016-38. Mr. Abel will take us through it.

SOR/2016-38 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PROTECTION OF PASSENGER INFORMATION REGULATIONS.

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 9F:1.)

Mr. Abel: The committee is awaiting promised amendments that would clarify or correct the wording of three provisions. When the committee reviewed this instrument at its meeting on April 11, 2019, members wished to obtain a timeline from the Canada Border Services Agency for the making of these amendments. In late 2019, the agency expected the amendments to be made by fall 2020. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to significant delays. As of July 2022, the agency now expects to make the amendments by spring 2023. Currently, as we approach the middle to end of spring, the amendments have not yet been made. If members wish, counsel could monitor the Gazette until the end of spring and then follow up with the agency if the amendments have not appeared by June 21.

Mr. Allison: I would suggest that we draft a letter and be pretty firm with some time frames — before we actually rise from the House here, maybe in the next 30 to 60 days — asking for a timeline of when these amendments may be completed.

Mr. Morantz: I would agree with that suggestion and agree with counsel’s recommendations that the file be monitored and that the department, if the commitments are not fulfilled, report back to the committee by the end of spring.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): If I could ask for clarification on when we expect the spring notice of the Gazette, what does “spring” typically mean, when does it come out?

Mr. Abel: In our experience, when departments refer to spring, fall, winter or summer, they technically mean when the solstice of the equinox occurs. When the department says spring 2023, we take it to mean up to June 21.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: As I understand it, they’ve chosen their season so that, if they don’t do their job, we won’t be here. It’s a nice choice of season. If I didn’t want to comply, it seems to me I’d choose spring. I also strongly suggest that we ask for a specific date and that it be a little earlier in the spring. In any case, the weather’s nice this year, as spring came earlier, so we can get them going again before the summer break.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): That’s exactly why it’s a good idea to write the letter now and not wait for spring to be over. If there is agreement around the table, that’s what we shall do. Thank you, Mr. Abel.

Let’s move to the next item.

SOR/2016-37 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS.

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 9G:1.)

Mr. Abel: The committee is awaiting promised amendments on two concerns on this file, which are again under the care of the Canada Border Services Agency. Since this file was last before the committee in 2019, the agency has provided confirmation that the forthcoming amendments will address the full breadth of the committee’s concerns.

In 2019, the agency indicated that these amendments would likely proceed through two different regulatory streams. Neither of the amendments have yet been made and, almost certainly, this information is now out of date from the agency. If members wish, counsel could write to the agency again to obtain a current timeline as to when the amendments will be completed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you, Mr. Abel. If I could just clarify, why is this item described as “action promised” as opposed to “progress”?

Mr. Abel: In between the time this was last before the committee in 2019, there was still a need for clarification as to whether the agency’s plans would actually resolve all of the issues the committee had raised. Between now and then, the committee has received that confirmation, so now the only issue to pursue is when the actual amendments will be made.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: Could we ask the Canada Border Services Agency during what season they plan to make the changes?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): The recommendation is for a letter to be drafted asking about when progress will be completed. If colleagues agree, we’ll instruct counsel to do as such. Thank you, Mr. Abel.

We move to the next section of items and turn to Ms. Lévesque.

[Translation]

SOR/1989-93 — ONTARIO FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1989

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 9H:1.)

Geneviève Lévesque, Counsel to the Committee: This file was last presented to the committee on September 25, 2014.

A new provision was added in 2019 to the Fisheries Act, creating an offence relating to the breach of the terms of a lease, licence or authorization granted under the powers conferred by that act.

This offence resolves the last unanswered question on file. Since Parliament has itself created the offence of violating the conditions of application of an administrative document, committee members no longer have to worry about the possibility of a delegate creating such an offence in the absence of clear evidence of intention.

All remaining concerns about the regulations will continue with respect to the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007, SOR/2007-237. Therefore, if the committee members are satisfied, the file concerning SOR/1989-93 can be closed.

[English]

Mr. Webber: I’m glad to see this ongoing saga is done, over and closed and that there are no longer issues. Yes, I agree, let’s close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Could I clarify why this is not described as “reply satisfactory” and not labelled “action taken”? What is the distinction between the two?

[Translation]

Ms. Lévesque: Thank you for the question.

In this case, there were pending legislative amendments. Corrections have been made to the Fisheries Act, so we’ve been waiting for the corrections that were promised and that have now been made.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): It was changed as veto in Parliament. Thank you. We will close this file and we come back to you again on the next item.

[Translation]

SOR/2007-90 — RULES AMENDING THE PATENT RULES

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 9I:1.)

Ms. Lévesque: This file was last presented to the committee on November 8, 2018. The Patent Rules have been repealed and replaced by the new Patent Rules, SOR/2019-251, which will be considered by and presented to the committee at a later date.

The comments of the joint committee were taken into account in the development and drafting of the new rules. Therefore, if the committee members are satisfied, file SOR/2007-90 can be closed.

[English]

Mr. Morantz: Yes, I would agree with that recommendation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I think we have agreement. Thank you. Let’s move on to the next item, and Mr. Hilton will take that.

SOR/2016-82 — CRITICAL HABITAT OF THE NOOKSACK DACE (RHINICHTHYS CATARACTAE SSP.) ORDER.

SOR/2020-171 — ORDER AMENDING THE CRITICAL HABITAT OF THE NOOKSACK DACE (RHINICHTHYS CATARACTAE SSP.) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 9J:1.)

Mr. Hilton: Five issues concerning the original critical habitat order of the Nooksack Dace, an endangered freshwater fish found in British Columbia, were raised with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in June 2016. Two of the five issues related to the department’s failure to comply with certain timeline requirements.

First, subsection 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, which required the department to transmit a copy of the original order to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration within seven days of its making. Second, subsection 58(5) of the Species at Risk Act, which required the original order to be made within 180 days after the original recovery strategy for the Nooksack Dace was posted on the species at risk public registry.

As a bit of background on the critical habitat protection process, if a wildlife species is listed in the Species at Risk Act as extirpated, endangered or threatened, then the minister must prepare a strategy for its recovery — a recovery strategy — which is a document that sets out what needs to be done to stop or reverse the decline of that species. As mentioned, the Nooksack Dace was listed as endangered. The recovery strategy must then be posted on the public registry, which is an online database that contains all the documents relating to the administration of the Species at Risk Act.

A critical habitat order, such as the ones before the committee now, must then be made to trigger the prohibition against the destruction of any part of that species’ critical habitat, the details of that critical habitat being laid out in the species’ associated recovery strategy.

To recap, a species is first listed in the Species at Risk Act as being endangered, a recovery strategy is then prepared to stop or reverse its decline, the species’ recovery strategy is then posted in the public registry and then an order is made to legally protect the species’ critical habitat.

To go back to the two timeline issues, the department provided information in a September 2017 letter about the new measures and procedures instituted to ensure compliance with the timeline requirements in the Species at Risk Act while the then-Minister of Fisheries and Oceans also provided assurances in a December 2017 letter that future critical habitat orders would comply with the timeline requirements.

At the committee’s meeting on February 15, 2018, members found those responses satisfactory. The remaining three issues originally raised with the department related to two incorrect geographic coordinates and an incorrect plural in the schedule to the original order. Amendments were promised on those issues in February 2017.

However, and as detailed in the briefing note prepared for members, the department’s anticipated completion date of the amendments was postponed twice while it worked first on changes to the recovery strategy of the Nooksack Dace. The finalization of the amended recovery strategy was then delayed because it needed to be updated again following comments received during a statutorily mandated consultation period, which was open for 60 days from January 11 to March 12, 2019.

That delay, resulting from having to further update the recovery strategy after the consultation period, though, meant that the department failed to meet a second timeline requirement under the Species at Risk Act, now subsection 43(2), which required the department to post on the public registry the final amended recovery strategy within 30 days following its consultation period, which was by April 11, 2019, in this case. However, it was only posted on the public registry in February 2020, some 10 months late.

The subsequent amending critical habitat order was then made in July 2020 as SOR/2020-171. As part of SOR/2020-171, a schedule to the order was repealed, which, as a result, resolved the committee’s three outstanding concerns regarding the incorrect geographic coordinates and the incorrect plural found in the schedule.

However, as you can see, the department had considerable difficulty in meeting statutory timelines throughout this file.

The department explained in a March 2020 letter that the delay in the posting of the final amended recovery strategy on the public registry was due to a high volume of other documents, such as other species recovery strategies, that also needed to be posted on the public registry. The department further stated that it remained committed to meeting the legislative requirements imposed by the Species at Risk Act; however, due to those “competing and urgent priorities,” it was “regrettably unable to do so in this instance.”

That is an explanation the committee often encounters when dealing with issues regarding statutory timeline requirements, and it is undoubtedly true that departments face competing priorities that can affect their abilities to allocate resources to a particular file. At the same time, Parliament clearly expressed its will in implementing the discussed timelines in the Species at Risk Act, and the department’s “competing and urgent priorities” are, in the end, no justification for its failure to meet those timelines. Rather, it only represents a lack of respect for Parliament’s will.

However, the committee’s concerns have now fully been addressed, so if members agree, both SOR/2016-82 and SOR/2020-171 can be closed.

Of note, critical habitat orders are made with some frequency, so if members further wish, the closing letter to the department could include a note about the committee’s expectation that the department will comply with the statutory timeline obligations under the Species at Risk Act and that such compliance will be closely monitored in future critical habitat orders.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Mr. Allison, do you have a comment?

Mr. Allison: Let me understand this: We have government legislation that sets out the timelines that, when it gets passed, cannot meet the timelines.

So I agree that we can close the file, but I think we most definitely should send a letter to the minister saying, “Listen, you are the guys who actually set the legislation in place. If the timelines aren’t going to be met, then change the timelines.” I don’t think that’s unreasonable. If the minister has a problem with that, maybe we can invite the minister in to talk to us about what the competing agenda items are and what makes their job so difficult in meeting those timelines.

Again, it’s legislation set out by the government so they can set the proper timelines. If not, what is the point of Parliament?

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): It’s a statutory obligation. I think that it is the recommendation that has been made.

Any other comments?

Ms. Atwin: It stood out to me that it was after having consultations that they had to go back and update the plan. Particularly anytime this is going to happen — which, as we know, there is a likely increased rate of this happening for species at risk. However, particularly in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada where there are unceded territories, consultations are going to be critical moving forward. So I don’t know if it’s perhaps prudent to enter into the letter that the co‑development model needs to be up front, and that might avoid delays in the future.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Other comments? The key point here is that we’re reminding the department to stick to its mandated timelines, and while they did this and fulfilled the obligation this time around, they did it 10 months late. Okay, let’s proceed as recommended.

We will go on to the last item. Mr. Abel, over to you.

SOR/2019-90 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONCENTRATION OF PHOSPHORUS IN CERTAIN CLEANING PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

Mr. Abel: Several years ago, the committee identified a concern regarding wording found in several regulations under the responsibility of Environment and Climate Change Canada. In essence, various regulations referred to testing that is to be done for certain substances by a laboratory that is accredited by a Canadian accrediting body. However, the regulations did not indicate how such an accrediting body is identified or qualified.

Subsequently, the department has engaged in a series of amendments to various regulations in order to resolve this concern, of which this is one example. These amending regulations replace section 7 of the Concentration of Phosphorus in Certain Cleaning Products Regulations in order to more clearly establish the qualifications of a Canadian accrediting body.

There were no new issues raised in the review of this instrument, and if members are satisfied, it may be closed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Okay. Are there any comments? It is so closed. Thank you very much.

We move to the next section, which is labelled “Statutory Instruments Without Comment,” which means that we do not usually go through these items, but I invite you to take a look through in case you have questions of our counsel, Ms. Lévesque.

Seeing none, I’m going to ask general counsel if there are other issues. Ms. Lévesque, did you want to comment on any of these?

[Translation]

SOR/2016-279 — ORDER AMENDING THE LIST OF TARIFF PROVISIONS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF (TARIFF ITEM NO. 9984.00.00)

SOR/2017-273 — ORDER AMENDING THE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES OF CANADA ORDER

SOR/2018-49 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2018-53 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PACIFIC PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS

SOR/2018-233 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CARGO, FUMIGATION AND TACKLE REGULATIONS

SOR/2019-15 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS FISCAL MANAGEMENT ACT

SOR/2019-24 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF ROUGH DIAMONDS ACT

SOR/2019-39 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE ROUGE NATIONAL URBAN PARK ACT

SOR/2019-52 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 OF THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT

SOR/2019-67 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS, 1996

SOR/2019-70 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT AND REGULATIONS (PENALTIES AND SCHEDULES)

SOR/2019-71 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (RUSSIA) REGULATIONS

SOR/2019-72 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (UKRAINE) REGULATIONS

SOR/2019-114 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES FISHERY REGULATIONS

Ms. Lévesque: These 15 statutory instruments have been reviewed by the committee’s legal counsel and found to meet all criteria. If a committee member wishes to consult them, they are available on request; otherwise, we recommend that these files be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you, Ms. Lévesque, Mr. Hilton, Mr. Abel and Ms. Dupuis, for your dedication to this committee. We are finishing early today. Thank you very much.

(The committee adjourned.)