Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 10 - Evidence

The Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:30 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

[English]

Ms Jill Anne Joseph, Joint Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators and members, in the absence of the joint chairs I will accept nominations for an acting chair.

Mr. Myers: I nominate Senator Moore.

The Joint Clerk (Ms Joseph): If there are no other nominations, is it agreed that Senator Moore serve as acting chair?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I invite Senator Moore to take the Chair.

Senator Wilfred P. Moore (Acting Joint Chairman) in the Chair.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): On the matter that was circulated by staff to everyone dealing with the Fifth Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation to be hosted in Zimbabwe, there is a letter before you advising the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe that, due to the impending federal election in our country, all committees would cease and we would not be able to send delegates. That is before you as an information item. Any questions or comments on that?

[Translation]

Ms Venne: What I would like to know is whether, when invitations are received, only the two joint chairmen decide whether or not to accept them and why I was not informed of the invitation. I simply would like to know. I would probably have accepted, but in deference to the other members and parties, perhaps we should have been told about the invitation.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Joseph): I first sent the letter of invitation to the joint clerks at the beginning of October. I am not sure what happened, but they did not mention it.

Ms Venne: I would like the two joint chairmen to be informed that in the future, I want to be kept apprised of things. That is all.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): That is a fair comment. We will now proceed with the regular agenda.

HEALTH OF ANIMALS FEES NOTICE (1998)

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The first item, under "Unsatisfactory Reply," is Health of Animals Fees Notice 1998. Do you have a comment on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: In the matter of this file, aside from point 1, where amendments have been promised, the department's response to the other three points raised should be deemed unsatisfactory. Regarding points 2 and 3, the relevant enabling provisions are sections 24(1) and 25 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, pursuant to which the minister may set the fees to be paid for services rendered or benefits received. There is no provision for this in the regulations.

In one instance, the fee to be paid is $217.50, plus related costs. If the regulations stated that the fee to be paid was in fact $217.50, then we would not have a problem. The minister would have set the fee payable, as the legislation authorizes him to do. However, by adding a reference to "related costs", the fee thus becomes variable and is no longer being set by the minister.

In the other instance, the regulations simply state that actual costs must be paid. The Agency's explanation is that the fee corresponds to the actual amount established by a third party, independent of both the CFIA and the individual receiving the service. Therefore, in reality, the fee is not set by the minister.

Regarding point 4, in its letter the Agency fails to actually answer the question put to it. For a fee of $100, the Agency will examine each page of advertising submitted, pursuant to subsection 135(2) of the regulations. First of all, this provision does not require that advertising be submitted to the Agency. Rather, it prohibits persons from making representations that are false, misleading or deceptive, or that are likely to create a false impression about a product. Counsel wanted to know which services the CFIA was providing for a fee of $100.

They also were curious as to what the Agency's opinion would be worth in the event of a possible prosecution for breach of section 135(2). The Agency acknowledges, on the one hand, that there is no requirement under section 135(2) for the advertising to be submitted to it. It merely notes that a fee of $100 is paid for its opinion on the advertising's conformity with section 135(2).

The provision is possibly invalid in the first instance. In the second, the Agency has failed to answer the question put to it. That is why counsel recommends that further correspondence be exchanged with the department with a view to clarifying matters.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Are there any comments? Mr. Lee?

Mr. Lee: I think most of us see the challenge that the department faces in drafting this particular fees regulation. It is one thing to provide a service at the departmental office in Windsor or in Moncton, but it is another level of costing to provide this service in Haiti or Chile, in the event that the officer of the department has to go outside Canada, which is envisaged by the fees regulation. How could the department possibly provide for recapture of those actual costs from applicants in a fee structure where the minister is generally supposed to set a specific fee, as our counsel has pointed out? How could they accomplish that and still be within the legal requirements that we normally follow?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: To the extent that it is impossible to set the fee if a structure based on actual costs must be established, the simple answer would be that we need enabling legislation to establish such a structure. Right now, no such legislation is in place.

[English]

Mr. Lee: Would it be possible to set a fee and then state that included with that fee will be a recovery of amounts expended, in the way that a service provider might bill a fee and then add expenses as a doctor or a lawyer or a land surveyor might? For example, my fee is $2,000 to do this survey.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Plus disbursements?

Mr. Lee: I add into that my actual costs of travel, accommodation, fuel charges, the cost to drive across the bridge to Prince Edward Island, that kind of thing. Is it not possible to draft a fee schedule with that in there?

Mr. François-R. Bernier, General Counsel to the Committee: Not with the current authority. In answer to your first question, there is nothing that says that a department cannot estimate, based on experience, what those actual costs or incidental costs of providing a service might be and then build it up in the fee. Let us say you have a fee of $100 plus actual expenses. We look over a year and we say that, generally, these are the expenses. Instead of having a fee of $100, we will have a fee of $120. There may not be a perfect fit between each fee of $120 and the expenses in that particular case, because in one case the expenses may not be there, but you can show a reasonable connection overall. That is one way.

The second way is to ask Parliament. This committee is not responsible for the way statutes or authorities that the government asks of Parliament are drafted. It is incumbent upon government to think about these things ahead of time. If you wish to have the authority do that kind of cost recovery, ask for the authority. If you have not asked for it, live within the limits of the authority you did ask for and obtained. Practically speaking, you can say that, on average, in a year we have actual costs or other costs that come to such an amount, and then you build it in your fee.

Mr. Lee: Has counsel told us explicitly, now that the wording in the statute does not authorize, by any stretch of interpretation...

Mr. Bernier: The authority to fix fees. You must see the fee on the face of it.

Mr. Lee: Do you have the wording?

Mr. Rousseau: Yes. It says that the minister may fix the fees to be paid for a service. Then section 25 says that the minister may fix fees in respect of products, rights, et cetera. It is just fixing the fees. That is the actual enabling authority.

Mr. Lee: Thank you.

Mr. Bernier: Not to mention, Mr. Chairman, that there is no constitutional rule that says government should never use its general tax revenues in order to pay the expenses of government and that everything must be recovered through cost recovery fees. There might be circumstances where one did not have a fee and one would fall back on general tax revenues, and that is an expense of government.

Mr. Lee: My view is that we go back to that part and set out fairly clearly our position -- we certainly did that before -- and seek their reply.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-446 -- TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, a letter dated June 27, 2000, in relation to this file was inadvertently omitted from the distributed material, and it has been made available this morning.

In a letter dated September 9, 1999, I asked for a reply to two specific questions: First, will the board amend section 23(2) as suggested by the committee, and if not why not? Second, what is the legal rationale for the board's position that section 10(3) of the regulations is valid? The eventual reply of June 27 advises that the board is completing a revision of the regulations and that a copy of the revision will be made available. There is nothing in that reply to indicate that section 23(2) will be amended or that section 10(3) will be revoked.

If that assurance can be provided, fine; otherwise, the letter is certainly not an adequate reply. At this point, I would suggest perhaps that the chair of the committee write very promptly to the chair of the board, perhaps with a copy to the responsible minister, to ask for a much more specific commitment in respect of those two issues.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): I have an observation as well. You wrote on September 9, 1999, and this letter from Mr. Harding is dated June 27, 2000. Was there nothing in between?

Mr. Bernier: There was a follow-up, or chase-up letter in June.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): From you?

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Why does it take nine months to get a letter back?

Mr. Bernier: You would need to ask Mr. Harding.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: It is time to take action!

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): What do we have here? Nothing.

Mr. Lee: In reviewing this prior to the meeting I had determined that, if we were not on the eve of a possible dissolution, Mr. Harding could probably set aside a Thursday morning to come and explain this. At this point it is probably just as well to write him back and ask for a reply that deals specifically with the two items we have raised, with particulars, rather than just saying you are going to rewrite the regulation.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Within 30 days, as opposed to nine months. I feel we should indicate some displeasure with the tardiness.

Mr. Lee: It definitely will be here within 30 days, but when the House next comes back I think counsel and members will want to take a quick look at this one and Mr. Harding should be apprised of that, as should the Transportation Safety Board. It struck me that in fact we should not rely on Mr. Harding anymore since he seems to be in the role of jerking us around. We should ask the chair to explain. However, I am sure Mr. Harding and his colleagues will be able to deal with the two items in a reply letter if we specifically ask him for that. In the absence of that, we would really not have much choice but to ask the chair to come here and explain.

Senator Cochrane: Mr. Chair, in paragraph 2 of the letter dated September 9, 1999, I think our counsel specifically requested that information, so I do not see why we need to ask Mr. Harding to do this again. We should ask why it has not been done, why has it taken so long, and where are they in their position? The board has a position here; it must live up to that position. That is my view.

Mr. Lee: I agree.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): We should be a little stronger in our letter than just asking for a response to those two points.

Mr. Bernier: First, to whom do we write, the chair or Mr. Harding?

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): What is the recommendation, Mr. Lee, as to whom our letter should be directed to? Should it be to the chair of the board?

Mr. Lee: I would go to the chair and I would say that, in the absence of a reasonably prompt reply with particulars, some members have indicated an intention to call the chair.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): How would the letter be worded?

Mr. Bernier: What is to happen if we have a dissolution?

Mr. Lee: If the member comes back, the member might still have the intention.

Mr. Bernier: I take it the member has the intention of being re-elected.

Mr. Lee: The member has the intention of seeking a mandate to come back and call the chair. My constituents do not understand much of this.

Mr. Bernier: Should we add a copy to the responsible minister as well, a copy of the letter to the chair of the board?

Mr. Lee: I think so.

Mr. Myers: As well as a copy to the gentlemen.

Senator Cochrane: Mr. Harding, yes, and make it a bit stronger.

Mr. Bernier: All right.

SOR/96-447 -- ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE, AMENDMENT

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): What is the latest on this continuing saga?

Mr. Bernier: We are dealing with section 6(2)(b)(ii) of the regulations, which would allow service of a document to be affected at an address mentioned in any document previously filed in proceedings, whether or not the document from which the address is taken is one that was filed by the party being served, himself or herself, or by someone else. The committee has been concerned with the potential that this provision presents for service not being effected because the address to which it is effected is the wrong one. The commission has consistently refused either to remove this provision or at least to restrict it to the use of a document filed by the party being served. That refusal has been on the grounds that this would "unduly" restrict the commission's options for service.

In and of itself this is a little worrisome. The commission appears more concerned with its own convenience than it is with ensuring that parties to its proceedings are served properly. The commission's position was reiterated in Mr. McDonell's letter of August 11, 2000. Unfortunately that letter does not explain why the commission needs this option for service when it already has three other means of effecting service, as indicated in my letter of September 2, in the third full paragraph.

Why are those other means not sufficient? As Mr. McDonell recognizes, those other means are similar to the rules of civil procedure and, I may add, are generally considered sufficient by most quasi-judicial bodies. Mr. McDonell also avoids answering the question put to him concerning section 6(2)(b)(i), and why there should be an option for service under section 6(2)(b)(ii) that does not exist under the preceding subparagraph. Why should you be able to serve at the address of a principal office mentioned in any document filed during the proceedings, whether or not it is filed by the party who has that office, but you cannot serve at the address of a residence mentioned in any document filed during the proceedings?

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the provision at issue is legal. The question is whether it is proper and whether the committee feels that its potential for error with the result of a party not being served properly is such that the committee can take the view that the provision contravenes the committee's scrutiny criterion No. 10 in that it is not consistent with the rules of natural justice. If that is the feeling of the committee, we can pursue this. The committee could also decide that the potential for error is not significant enough to warrant that conclusion and that, while it disagrees with the commission, it will defer its obvious wish to retain that provision.

I wish to emphasize something I said earlier, which is that I find the commission's insistence on an argument based on its convenience somewhat disturbing. As a quasi-judicial body, the commission's main preoccupation, in my opinion, ought to be whether or not its rules of procedure, including its rules of service, are fair to the parties and effective. That ought to be their priority, rather than what is more convenient for the commission from an administrative point of view.

Senator Bryden: Mr. Chairman, is it not the case that the question really is whether or not what the commission is doing, whether convenient or inconvenient, is within the authority that has been given to the commission by the statute that governs it?

We are reaching a bit here by telling the commission that, in this instance, in our opinion we do not think it is fair, that what it is doing is trying to be convenient and that it may be flying in the face of natural justice. Natural justice covers a huge number of sins of omission and commission. I would feel more comfortable if our committee were concentrating its effort on asking whether what the commission is doing is within the terms of what it is authorized to do in its statute, and if it is, it is not really our business whether what the commission is doing is fair or unfair. It can be unfair as long as it is basically in compliance with the law.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out for all members that whether or not a regulation is authorized by the terms of the enabling legislation is only the first of the 13 scrutiny criteria of this committee. We also have as criteria approved by both Houses of Parliament, whether or not a regulation appears for any reason to infringe a rule of law, whether it trespasses unduly on rights and liberties, whether it makes the rights and liberties of a person unduly dependant on administrative discretion, or whether it is not consistent with the rules of natural justice. That is the criterion I referred to here.

I did recognize, Senator Bryden, that I think the legal authority is there. That is not the question. As I indicated in my opening comment, the issue is whether the committee is satisfied with the natural justice. It is certainly well within the jurisdiction of this committee to inquire into those aspects of a regulation as well.

Senator Bryden: Are you saying that if a regulation made by the commission or some agency is clearly within the legislation, that is, if the legislation clearly empowers the commission to do what it is doing, these rules allow us to say that that action, that regulation, is invalid because it violates natural justice?

Mr. Bernier: No, the committee would not say it is invalid; the committee would simply object. As you well know, this committee is not a court of justice and we are not fulfilling the same function. It is a function of parliamentary scrutiny, which goes beyond the strict legality of the matter. It is true that in most cases legality is what the committee is looking at; however, there are certainly other criteria.

For example, one scrutiny criterion directs that the committee must decide whether a regulation represents an unusual or unexpected use of power. Clearly that is a judgment that a court would not be called upon to make. Something may well be legal, and the committee has certainly come across regulations that are, strictly speaking, authorized, but members, as experienced parliamentarians looking at regulations, come to the conclusion that when we authorized the making of regulations under a statute, never in a thousand years did we expected that kind of regulation to be made. If that conclusion is reached, then the committee will object not on legal ground, but on the ground of that scrutiny criterion.

Senator Bryden: What is the anticipated remedy in that situation?

Mr. Bernier: The approach is the same as in any other case, whether it is an objection to legality or not. The representations are made to the responsible department with an explanation of the reasons why the committee wishes a regulation to be changed. If that department does not accept making the change, the committee can eventually report to the Houses, and so on, as it sees fit. We proceed in the same way as we would with a file involving an issue of legality.

Senator Bryden: I am new to the committee. I realize that we are not a judicial body, but the terminology being used is closer to what I have heard in court. That concerned me.

I presume the remedy is that we go through this process, it goes back to Parliament and Parliament says, "No, that is what we meant. We meant to allow them to do that." Then what do we do? Do we still say, "No, we think it is unfair"?

Mr. Bernier: Senator, I did indicate to the committee this morning that there are two approaches. That is why I took pains to mention that the regulation is legal.

What the committee must decide is not whether or not the regulation is legal. Rather, we must consider whether to accept that this commission will enact a supplementary rule above and beyond the usual rules that most quasi-judicial bodies adopt in regulations with respect to service. Under that supplementary rule, this commission can go through documents filed in a proceeding and take a party's address from a document filed by another party, not the party being served, and then serve a document at that address. If my address is referred to in a document filed by someone else, that person might have made a mistake. Is that an acceptable risk? It is one thing to use an address found in a document that I filed, and that is one of the suggestions that has been made to the commission -- that the commission restrict the rule to the use of an address appearing in a document filed by the party who is to be served. Thus, the issue is the risk of error.

The main preoccupation ought not to be the convenience of the commission. The main preoccupation ought to be ensuring that parties are notified within the framework of proceedings. I am sure that at some level that is also what the commission wants. Thus, it must be determined what the best means are, whether this is too risky a procedure and whether the commission should simply rely on the more traditional approaches.

Senator Bryden: We may have determined that what the commission is doing is legal, but what will occur if there continues to be a difference of opinion between this committee and the commission, if, ultimately, it goes back to Parliament and Parliament decides whether or not what the commission is doing falls within the ambit? Presumably, it could go to court, and someone could say, "The commission may do that but it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Since I have been on this committee, I have been concerned that we are very adversarial in our approach in that we tend to say, "But they are not doing it the way we want it done." Maybe it is in the nature of the beast, but it is a concern. I am somewhat reassured if the ultimate answer comes from the parliamentarians. I come from the old school that believes if Parliament does it right and it is in its own jurisdiction, then it is Parliament that decides, not a committee or a commission or whatever.

Mr. Bernier: All I can say is that this committee has been set up by Parliament for the purpose of doing what we are doing this morning. The scrutiny criteria the committee uses are submitted to both Houses of Parliament at the beginning of each session and are approved by both Houses. I can only assume that, whichever way the decision goes on this particular regulation, you are fulfilling the mandate that Parliament has given you. Either way is perfectly appropriate. That is why it is up for your decision this morning whether or not we pursue this matter.

Senator Bryden: Thank you.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): I do not know that our approach is adversarial. We have a job to do and we have to do it. If the people who write back to us are not performing or acting consistent with the law or if their proposed regulations are not consistent with the law, it is our job to point that out and to try to get consistency. I do not think we can abdicate that role. That is what we are here to do. If their procrastination and unwillingness to comply with the law make us appear adversarial, so be it.

Mr. Lee: I want to make a note to what Senator Bryden just said. He made an assumption that in the case of continuing disagreement on this issue, the matter would amble on and end up in the court to be resolved at some point. I think that is what he said.

Senator Bryden: That is one avenue. I would think it would go back to Parliament.

Mr. Lee: Of course, we have under the rules of the House and the Senate a closed circuit operation here where we are fully capable of resolving it ourselves in the end by disallowance, or something in the middle if so advised. It would not have to go outside Parliament into the courts at all.

Our counsel has spotted a potential for unfairness in the existing regulation and we have suggested that to the commission. I suppose the members of the commission do not accept that there is a potential for unfairness and they do not view themselves as ever being unfair. They view themselves as always being in compliance with the regulations.

Having said that, I do not view the issue here as one of sufficient magnitude. We have pointed out the risk of potential unfairness to a party being served, purportedly served, or not being served when they should have been at some other location or at a more precise address. I am not moved to a view that would cause me to want to go beyond pointing it out. If the commission thinks it is well on top of the file, I would be prepared to leave it, having pointed it out, having done my job.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): We have pointed out the inconsistency and our concern for a possible unfairness arising out of that. What we would like to see is contained in one subsection but not in the other. Is that correct, Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Bernier: Yes. As I said, if the service is to be effected at a place of business, apparently the commission can use the address of that party, of that place of business, from any document previously filed. If the commission is effecting service at the residence, even though the address of the residence may appear, then it could not. It would be restricted to traditional methods, which are outlined in the third paragraph. There is somewhat of an inconsistency here as to why the commission would have that flexibility when it comes to place of business but not when it comes to place of residence.

That being said, I should say the committee had a concern with that provision with regard to place of business. It would be a little odd to now insist that the commission also include the same rule if we are not going to pursue this. It might be a little odd to insist also that the commission put the same rule in place for a residence. It might be better to follow Mr. Lee and just leave it at that and consider that attention has been drawn to the matter and that there is simply a difference of opinion.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Do we as a committee write back and point out our continuing concern?

Mr. Bernier: I think those concerns are well known, Mr. Chairman. I would say those concerns have been registered.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I would be inclined to write back and reaffirm the point and the potential for unfairness and thank the commission for its attention to the file.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is that agreed?

Senator Cochrane: We should also mention that there is a risk of error should the commission not follow through with what we are recommending. If we are dealing here with all the legal aspects, if that is our job, we should be careful that no errors are allowed. We should mention that there is a risk of error here.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Are you comfortable with those instructions?

Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, because what Senator Cochrane just said rang a bell here. I think the point you were making has been acknowledged by Mr. McDonell. In his letter of August 11, on the second page, at the beginning of the last full paragraph, he writes:

I acknowledge the possibility that a document filed by another party (other than the one being served) might contain an incorrect address for the person being served...

Senator Cochrane: Okay.

Mr. Bernier: He adds that he is not aware of actual instances of error. If nobody received the document, that might be why.

Senator Cochrane: That is not the point.

Mr. Bernier: He would not know. The commission does recognize that the potential is there, but its focus seems to be on not unduly restricting the commission's discretion or flexibility, as Mr. McDonell put it.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, the record might as well recognize that this commission has had, over the last two or three years, a form of christening, a test by fire, and it is probably well able to make its own way in the big, bad world, but I think we have done our job.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is it agreed we will send such a letter?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/85-686 -- PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/93-232 -- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OMNIBUS AMENDMENT ORDER, 1993-1

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next two items are under "Progress." Do you want to deal with those two together?

Mr. Rousseau, are you going to deal with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: In both cases, promises have been made to resolve the problems identified and to amend the legislation. In the last letter received, we were advised that the Agency was awaiting direction from the Minister of Health as to the timing of the introduction of the bill to Parliament. This bill has not been tabled. That is where matters stand at the present time.

However, the last letter hints at the possibility of amending the regulations to that the most serious, long-standing problem might be resolved without having to amend the legislation.

The letter is not, however, very clear on this point and counsel cannot say whether this course of action would resolve anything. Under the circumstances, counsel will continue to monitor this file and to keep the committee abreast of any developments.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/86-21 -- ATLANTIC FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1985

SOR/86-1000 -- ATLANTIC FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1985, AMENDMENT

SOR/87-313 -- ATLANTIC FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1985, AMENDMENT

SOR/87-672 -- ATLANTIC FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1985, AMENDMENT

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next item begins with SOR/86-21, Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1995. There are four items under this rubric.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Regarding these four files, the department has informed us that it expects the new regulations to be in place by January 2001 and the promised amendments to be made at this time. Once again, counsel will monitor the situation and keep the committee informed.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next item on the agenda is "Progress (?)".

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, although this file is now 17 years old and, in August of 1998, the responsible minister assured the committee that a resolution of the issue would be sought as early as possible, I suppose the committee, if it wishes, can take comfort in the fact that, to quote Mr. Sinclair of the responsible department, his department "remains committed to resolving this matter as quickly as possible."

At the time of writing, the department was engaged in a thorough legal analysis of the existing regulations, which of course are the regulations it has proposed to revoke, and undertakes to report to the committee in the fall.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): We are now in the fall, and what is the report?

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, this is a very old file. I recall the committee taking note of the huge and complex chain of consultation that this kind of file entailed up in the Northwest Territories where you have several levels of governance and, if not Indian bands, then aboriginals whose territories and hunting grounds are there. I think at one point it even included Santa Claus because we are dealing with reindeer. I had some sympathy for the department -- it really was a complex task.

Mr. Bernier: There are two departments involved as well.

Mr. Lee: I just remember having some sympathy for it, which I think is why the committee previously acquiesced in the age of the file. I know, Mr. Chairman, you are assiduous in pointing out these longstanding files as a scourge.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): What is the course of action, then?

Mr. Lee: Progress is evident.

Mr. Bernier: We will be sending a letter asking for a follow-up report.

C.R.C. c.1486 -- SMALL FISHING VESSEL INSPECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix, p. 10A:1.)

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next item comes under "Part Action Promised."

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in this case, in terms of the problems noted, there are two letters to look at. They are the letter of December 18, 1997, and the letter of February 17, 1999.

In terms of the replies, by and large, Mr. Chairman, amendments were promised with respect to all matters raised by counsel. The one exception relates to section 21.6.3(vi) of the standard identified as standard TP 127. The explanation in this case, which is in point 3 of the letter of December 24, 1999, seems acceptable. However, that reply did not address counsel's query as to the need for the provision in light of the existence of section 305(2.1) of the Canada Shipping Act, which allows the board to grant exemptions. I would suggest, perhaps, that this particular question be resubmitted to the department to ensure that there is a need for this provision in the standard and that the possible application of section 305 has not been overlooked.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-676 -- NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DRILLING REGULATIONS

SOR/95-188 -- NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DRILLING REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

Mr. Bernier: In this case, members may have noted that the full text of the regulations was not distributed with the correspondence. Those regulations are huge and could be quite unmanageable.

Over 60 issues and queries were made on those regulations. In the final analysis, amendments have been promised in relation to all the points raised, with the following exceptions. I am keeping here to the numbering used in the original letter from counsel. Satisfactory explanations have been made in relation to points numbered 5, 11, part of 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20, 25, part of 34, 42, and 47 to 49. Explanations on those points are acceptable. As I said, on all the other points, amendments have been promised.

At this point, we still need to obtain from the department an estimate of the time that will be required for completion of what by now really amounts to a revision of the regulations because the amendments are so extensive.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Then you will continue to follow up.

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

SOR/98-574 -- ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 1998-4

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next item is SOR/98-574 -- Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, 1998-4.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, two points concerning the drafting of this order have been raised. The department explained why there was no error in the first case, and, in the second case, it promised to bring in an amendment. Counsel for the committee will monitor the situation and keep members abreast of any developments.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/99-123 -- TORONTO/LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix, p. 10B:1.)

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next item is SOR/99-123 -- Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport Zoning Regulations. Mr. Rousseau?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chairman, three points concerning the drafting of the regulations have been raised; two amendments have been promised and one satisfactory explanation has been provided. Again, counsel will monitor the situation.

Ms Venne: The first point raised concerned errors in the French version. Is that correct?

Mr. Rousseau: That is correct. In the second instance, we are not necessarily dealing with errors in the French version. For example, we have the world "threshold." There are errors in the French version owing to the fact that the same terminology was not always used. These things happen occasionally.

Ms Venne: I understand. Thank you.

[English]

SOR/99-324 -- BOOK IMPORTATION REGULATIONS

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next item is SOR/99-324 -- Book Importation Regulations. Mr. Rousseau?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: In all, four points were raised concerning the drafting of the regulations. Amendments were promised in the case of the last three points. As for the first point, the answer received may be deemed satisfactory. Obviously, counsel will continue to monitor the situation and to keep the committee abreast of any developments.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-553 -- TORONTO HARBOUR LICENSING BY-LAW, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix, p. 10C:1.)

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Next, under "Reply Satisfactory," is the Toronto Harbour Licensing Bylaw amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: As you can see from the comment, let me say first of all that amendments have been made by way of these regulations.

Counsel for the committee had also called into question the validity of section 19. The regulations have, however, since been repealed. Therefore, there is no point pursuing this matter further and if the committee has no objections, the file can be closed.

[English]

Mr. Lee: This was a 14-year-old file, and it has concluded successfully. I am pleased to see that.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Therefore, the 17-year-old file that we just dealt with can be expected to arrive at a similarly happy conclusion?

Mr. Lee: That is what I was thinking.

SOR/91-139 -- CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING AGENCY PROCLAMATION, AMENDMENT

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next item, under "Reply Satisfactory (?)," is the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency Proclamation amendment.

Mr. Bernier: Some enabling authorities set out in the proclamation before the committee are ultra vires. The committee wanted a formal assurance that, pending the outcome of certain discussions between concerned parties, those enabling authorities would not be exercised. While this is not exactly what the committee has received, I think it is the next best thing.

In his reply, the deputy minister states that in the event that the CFC enacted a regulation under the unlawful provisions, legal counsel to the National Farm Products Council, which must approve the regulations, would recommend that they not be approved. If this is satisfactory we will monitor the progress of the discussions, which should result in a new regime by the end of this year.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Any comments from committee members?

Mr. Lee: We are probably about to accept this type of undertaking or pseudo-undertaking. It comes from the desk of the deputy minister but is not signed personally by that person. I am still prepared to go with the departmental position, but usually these kinds of commitments should be over the signature of the person who gives it. I am okay with the commitment. It seems like a reasonable resolution.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Are we closing the file?

Mr. Bernier: No. There are ongoing discussions now that may lead to the replacement of this proclamation entirely. We will monitor the file until the new proclamation is in place. We will not close the file.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Thank you. Carried.

SI/96-87 -- WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL ORDER (WAGER BAY NATIONAL PARK, N.W.T.)

SI/98-3 -- WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL ORDER (EAST ARM OF GREAT SLAVE LAKE NATIONAL PARK -- GREAT SLAVE LAKE, N.W.T.)

SI/98-54 -- WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL ORDER (NATIONAL PARK -- BATHURST ISLAND, N.W.T.)

(For text of documents, see Appendix, p. 10D:1.)

SI/98-128 -- ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE YUKON TERRITORY (KLUANE NATIONAL PARK RESERVE, Y.T.)

SOR/94-581 -- INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SATELLITE ORGANIZATION (INMARSAT) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ORDER

SOR/95-536 -- MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT) 1995-3

(For text of documents, see Appendix, p. 10E:1.)

SOR/97-542 -- REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART I)

SOR/98-590 -- ORDER PROHIBITING ENTRY ON CERTAIN LANDS IN THE YUKON TERRITORY (1998, NO. 11, KLUANE NATIONAL PARK RESERVE, Y.T.)

SOR/99-158 -- REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART VII)

SOR/2000-94 -- REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PUBLIC HARBOURS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix, p. 10F:1.)

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): The next items are under "Action Promised" and "Action Taken."

Mr. Bernier: If I may, Mr. Chairman, taking as a group all of the instruments listed under both the headings "Action Promised" and "Action Taken," we have 16 promised amendments and three amendments, including revocation, that have been made at the request of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Comments from committee members?

Mr. Lee: That is great.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Are there any comments with respect to the instruments listed on our agenda here?

Mr. Lee: Great work by the staff.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): It is nice to win a few.

Mr. Lee: Before adjourning, Mr. Chairman, it is somewhere between possible and likely that we have come close to the end of this particular parliament. That being the case, on behalf of colleagues in the House, I wish to thank the committee staff and counsel for excellent service over this parliament. I think the committee has fulfilled its obligations to the both Houses of Parliament and our staff members deserve all the credit in the world for helping us do that.

Senator Cochrane: Hear, hear!

The Acting Joint Chairman (Senator Moore): Agreed. Thank you, everyone.

The committee adjourned.