---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 10 - Evidence, May 15 2008

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:32 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator J. Trevor Eyton and Mr. Derek Lee (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Good morning. We will open with the first item on the agenda.

SI/2005-2 — ORDER GIVING NOTICE OF DECISIONS NOT TO ADD CERTAIN SPECIES TO THE LIST OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: This revised draft of the third report concerns the Species at Risk Act, SRA. At the last meeting, members had comments and suggestions, which I hope are reflected in this new version. The purpose of the report is to draw to the attention of both Houses what appears to be a gap in the SRA. It is also the intent that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and the environment committees of both Houses be provided with copies of the report directly once it has been tabled.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Having checked with the clerk of the committee, I advise members that we have sufficient quorum to adopt a report. A prior draft of this report was distributed a couple of weeks ago, and we have all had a chance to look at it. I gave it an excellent mark. Are there comments from members on this report?

Mr. Szabo: In reading it, I became concerned about the language about the receipt by minister and the time line. However, I believe I understand the intent, although I am not sure if anyone else had problems with it. Specifically, I had problems with the readability at page 3, paragraph 6. It says, "in view of this, as the receipt of an assessment mentioned in the act as receipt by the minister. . . " We do not repeat the language — receipt of the notice or receipt of the minister.

Senator Harb: It should be "as received by the minister."

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): It reads well on the assumption that one has read the previous paragraphs, and the issue is receipt.

Mr. Szabo: That is exactly the point. It is only a small point in the context of a good report.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): In almost all respects, trained people will read this report and they will understand. Its legibility to a lay person might be less relevant, given that it is a technical piece intended to assist in the repair of federal legislation.

Mr. Szabo: The opinion is well taken.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We will put it as is. If counsel finds a way to restate or refine the wording, we will regard it as a technical change. There is no need to lock into it now. We can adopt the report as is and allow counsel the flexibility to make any necessary technical changes.

All in favour of adopting and submitting the report?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Adopted.

REPORT NO. 39 (FIFTH REPORT OF THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS)

Mr. Bernhardt: In March 1987, the committee made nine recommendations in respect of the exercise of law-making powers by Indian band councils. All these recommendations were accepted by the government of the day, and a number of them have been implemented. However, there have been several unsuccessful attempts to implement the remaining recommendations. Briefly stated, these are that the Indian Act be amended to guarantee the right to notice of delegated legislation and access to it by those affected; and that in respect of band bylaws, there can be no conviction for breach of the bylaws unless steps have been taken to bring them to the attention of those affected.

The last attempt to implement these recommendations was Bill C-7, introduced in the previous Parliament. It failed to receive passage and the government has advised that it has no intention of re-introducing this bill or any other bill on band governance in the foreseeable future.

The draft report reviews this history. While accepting that there are challenges in developing a comprehensive, modern First Nations framework, the report would express the committee's disappointment that the remaining recommendations have yet to be implemented. It asks the government to confirm that any new framework will address the remaining concerns of the committee, and urges the government to act upon its undertaking to implement these recommendations as soon as possible. The tabling of a comprehensive response in the House of Commons is also requested.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Are there any comments from colleagues?

I will say for the record that I found it to be a very good report. We have raised the issue previously. While the committee has accepted that a number of new statutes involving First Nations communities will have provisions allowing the adoption of what we might regard as delegated legislation by the tribal councils, we recognize that these councils and First Nations reserves often do not have an infrastructure that allows them to promulgate or give notice of some of the laws they may adopt. The report is intended to address that situation.

Legislation in front of the House of Commons right now explicitly states that delegated legislation by the First Nations groups will not be statutory instruments. However, no statement there deals with these issues of notice and promulgation, which is a matter of concern.

I want to put on the record another perspective here. If First Nations communities do not regard this as an issue for them, arguably this issue is less serious for us politically. The European or existing constitutional framework that imposes this view of the world and law on our First Nations communities is just that.

The report makes a good point and it says it well.

Senator Harb: In my understanding, they will be able to make their own laws when it comes to regulations; this committee will have nothing to do with those regulations. They do not have to come to us to ensure the regulations meet the requirement of the law. Is that right?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. At one time, in a partial response to one of the committee's recommendations, the band bylaws were exempted from the Statutory Instruments Act. They are not considered statutory instruments. That removes them from the whole scrutiny function. The committee's view at the time was that these bodies are democratically elected and they deserve a certain amount of deference.

The difficulty is when we take it out of the Statutory Instruments Act, we also remove all the publication and notice requirements that otherwise would go with delegated legislation.

Senator Harb: Is that perhaps something that can be done by a minister or ministry of some sort? For example, can they introduce legislation in the House of Commons, and when it becomes law and comes to the regulatory process, they print the first set of regulations that complies with the law? Also, they would include a statement saying subsequent regulation change does not need to go to Parliament. If that statement is part of the law that was adopted, it would also mean delegating authority to the minister to change regulations without coming back to Parliament.

Mr. Bernhardt: Conceivably, yes.

Senator Harb: That would become a serious precedent and a dangerous slippery slope for our democratic system, whereby the stuff this committee does — keeping an eye on regulations to ensure they meet the intent of the law — would be curtailed. Therefore, changes to regulations could be stretched. Almost like the leash on a dog, they could be 20 feet long or 3 feet long. They could be anywhere in between and no one would know.

I am concerned that a trend may develop at some point, either by this government or a future government. How can we, as parliamentarians, ensure those things are dealt with every time a bill is introduced in Parliament so it does not go that far?

We are all busy. As a result, sometimes a small wording change in the legislation can delegate that authority to the minister. It can throw us off balance and make us unable to do anything about it once it is done.

Mr. Bernhardt: There will always be some potential for concern when legislation proposes removing certain things from the process which otherwise would be considered regulations.

Here, this situation can be regarded as a unique. We are dealing with First Nations. We are dealing with bodies that are democratically elected making bylaws, as opposed to being left to a faceless bureaucracy to make them.

You are right; the question is one of being vigilant when those things come before Parliament, and ensuring that things that would be regulations otherwise are not swept aside out of public view. I think that is always a concern, but I have a little less concern here because of the situation we are dealing with in this instance.

Senator Harb: That point is well taken. Is it possible to keep an eye on legislation that goes through, and bring to the attention of the committee legislation that has the triggering mechanism to take away that authority from this committee?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is something we try to do. When we have seen those things in the past, we have bought them to the committee's attention.

Senator Zimmer: My understanding is that this provision is to protect Aboriginal rights. Is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: Exactly: The goal would be to have the same sort of publication and notice requirements for band bylaws that we have for regulations generally.

Senator Bryden: I know that in normal situations, ignorance is not a defence. Is there any precedent under municipal law where the courts have taken a lenient stand when the bylaws have never been promulgated? I do not know that there is, but if there is, would that not apply to your number three in what we were trying to do?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The law is clear. If there is ignorance of the law and there has been no attempt to make the law known to the public, the law is unenforceable. The courts have held that position for a long time.

Senator Bryden: That is what our number three in the list is trying to achieve.

Mr. Bernhardt: It would enshrine that principle, in effect. That reflects a provision that now exists in the Statutory Instruments Act. There is a requirement that a regulation be published. If a regulation is brought into force before it is published, no one can be convicted under the regulation unless reasonable steps — whatever those may be — have been taken to bring it to the notice of people affected. The genesis of that recommendation would be to have the same sort of guarantee in the Indian Act with regard to band bylaws.

Senator Bryden: That guarantee is reassuring, from my point of view. At least they will have that coming out of our normal practice.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): I have a question of counsel. The report is well written and clear enough in that it recommends a comprehensive response. It concerns me that the issue, and our concerns, have gone on for many years. I am not sure that we can be entirely confident that the solutions we are looking for will occur — in the near future, at least.

What is your role? You have kind of an oversight role and you are watching things. What precisely are you doing now so you can cover the issue and report to this committee to keep us current and up to date?

Mr. Bernhardt: We try to keep the committee updated. We continue to prod the department.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Is there dialogue between you and the department? Is that dialogue open and generous?

Mr. Bernhardt: At this point, because the issue is something the committee has reported on more than once and we have had legislation introduced more than once in the House to try to deal with it, communications at this point have taken place at the level of correspondence between the chair and the minister. That correspondence comes before the committee.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Does the department share our concerns? Are they aware of them?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes; indeed, they have made more than one attempt to implement legislation. The difficulty is that it runs aground on the rocky shore of the whole issue of First Nations governance. Those obstacles are significant and fundamental.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are you encountering any pushback or disagreement?

Mr. Bernhardt: No.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): We are all burdened with the same problem.

Mr. Bernhardt: Regarding some of the correspondence — and members have picked up on this from time to time in the past — you are seeing some of the same frustrations from the government side that the committee has. It is an uphill slog.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We have had a good discussion. I will put the report as it is for adoption.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): All in favour? No dissent? Seeing none, the report is adopted.

SOR/2005-317 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-369 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-393 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

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

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: Letters concerning these three instruments were sent to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development on April 5 and April 24, 2007. One reply addressing all three instruments was received on September 5, 2007.

Beginning with SOR/2005-317, a discrepancy between the French and English versions of one provision was noted. The department acknowledges the discrepancy but indicates that the provision has been applied in one manner only.

It is also noted that this provision is part of a pilot project that ends October, 2008, subject to possible extension. Perhaps, in this case, an assurance should be sought that, if the program is extended, the provision will be corrected.

Respecting SOR/2005-369, it was noted that the failure of the Public Service Commission to carry out a mandatory duty imposed in the regulations would be a contravention of the regulations and, therefore, an offence under the act.

The reply states that administrative remedies and an appeal are both available if the commission fails to perform the required duty, and suggests that an amendment, in this case, is not desired. Notwithstanding that an amendment was never suggested, the department should acknowledge that penal sanctions remain possible in this instance, however unlikely, regardless of the existence of alternate administrative remedies.

With respect to SOR/2003-393, three points were raised dealing with the discrepancies between the French and English versions of the regulations. Specifically, the English version of several provisions includes words of substance. They are not found in the French, such as "fully," "directly" or "substantially." It was suggested that the French version be amended to add equivalent words. Reference was made to similar provisions elsewhere in the French version that contain such words.

The department argues there is no need to make any changes, but the reply overlooks the fact that the effect of both versions of a provision must be the same regardless of whether the words are a direct translation.

It is also wrongly suggested that identical terminology is not required in similar provisions. On the contrary, the use of different terms in similar provisions gives rise to the presumption that different meanings are intended. In the absence of such an intent, consistency is expected by those interpreting the law.

Finally, the reply also failed to address another unrelated discrepancy between the French and English versions, which was raised in the first paragraph of point three of counsel's letter on that file.

Overall, it is suggested that the replies are unsatisfactory on all three files and three further letters can be drafted with respect to these files.

Mr. Wappel: I would have put this item under Reply Unsatisfactory, question mark. When I saw Reply Unsatisfactory, I was looking for something pretty obvious. For example, I would accept the explanation on the second point, SOR/2005-369. The explanation is reasonable. The argument is a semantic one and we are asking them to agree that, technically, they could be charged under the act. So what? That will never happen.

Regarding the project ending in October, 2008, yes, we could ask that, if they extend the project, they make the changes. However, that response is really Reply Unsatisfactory, question mark.

Frankly, I was satisfied with the explanation on the French, notwithstanding what Mr. Abel said here. It seems to me they have addressed the issue and have pointed out that the translation does not have to be literal; that certain phrases in the two languages cannot be translated exactly or should not be, yet have the same effect. I think you were talking about effect needing to be the same.

Personally, I would have said Reply Unsatisfactory, question mark, and I would have said, "Go ahead and ask them to implement the changes if the program proceeds in October." I would have accepted number two and three.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Are there any other comments?

Mr. Bernhardt: I will accept Mr. Wappel's characterizations on the first two. The difficulty I have with number three is that they have used those formulations elsewhere in the regulations. Therefore, clearly the question is not that the wording is inappropriate in French or that it would not work in French. There are other French provisions where they have taken precisely that approach.

Second, I submit the reverse argument. If it is not necessary to say in French "fully satisfactory" but simply "satisfactory," I suggest it is equally unnecessary in English to say "fully satisfactory." What does "fully" add? What does "directly" add?

I think there tends to be the assumption in the response that we were taking issue with the way the French drafter had gone about their business, which is not necessarily the case. It is simply a case that if we have a "directly responsible" or a "fully satisfactory" in English, we have "satisfactory" or "responsible" in French. What does the extra word add?

If it is necessary in English, it must be necessary in French. If it is unnecessary in French, I submit it is unnecessary in English. Let us reconcile them. I do not think it is a matter of slavish translation. It is a matter of aligning them.

I also have difficulty with the assertion that using different terms in a statute is only a matter of style. A fundamental legal presumption is that if we say "satisfactory" in one place and "fully satisfactory" in another place, something different is intended. What that difference is may be obscure, but something different was intended. If something different was not intended, then let us either add "fully" in one place or take it out in the other.

Perhaps I am going into minutiae as a legislative drafter.

Mr. Wappel: The analysis at Annex 3 says:

The Department of Justice Canada Regulations counsel have advised that the phrase "les conditions seront remplies" in French, without any modifiers, reflects that all conditions need to be met.

That phrase means "fully satisfactory." They say, therefore, it is not necessary to say "les conditions seront toutes remplies," whereas in English it might be necessary to say "fully satisfactory" — I do not know. The English drafters may think it is necessary.

This is my point: we are having a discussion on the true meaning of different phrases and different languages. According to what they said, the true meaning of that phrase is "all conditions must be met." Therefore, there is no need to add an extra French word. I think that was their point. I thought the comment was a reasonable one.

Mr. Bernhardt: I would agree, except, as we pointed out to them, there are other provisions in the same regulations where they have used that word. Even on their own argument, they are inconsistent. They say, "We do not need it here," but they have done it elsewhere.

For the sake of consistency, even accepting that we need "fully" in English but not in French, then let us take it out where it appears in French rather than having it in some places and not others. I am willing to accept that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I ask counsel what "counsel" refers to in the correspondence. Is it similar to L'Académie française for regulation-making in Canada?

Mr. Bernhardt: It is the legal counsel of the Department of Justice for the section on regulations.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I remind colleagues that counsel for the committee are skilled at drafting law in both official languages. In reading this reply, I had the sense that the department was saying that we do not realize that things can be said in different languages without literal translations, and that they understand how to do it and we do not understand.

That is not acceptable. I made the inference that because they were trying to justify the difference in wording, they had an interest in finding a third-party validation somewhere, anywhere. Given that this is a pilot program, we want to discourage them from using new-found phrases to describe concepts previously nailed down with existing words in existing regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: I suggest that the committee ask the department to ensure that the French version is consistent internally.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Yes, that is fine. Mr. Wappel makes some good points. Does counsel have a response to the first point?

Mr. Bernhardt: On the first point, we will suggest that they might want to clean up the provision if they are to extend the program. If it is the committee's wish not to ask for further recognition on the second point, that is fine.

On the third point, it would be a matter of suggesting that their explanation is fine, but the French version needs to be consistent in and of itself.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Szabo: When I read Annex 1, I noticed the argument was made that although there is a difference, it does not matter provided the calculation is done in the same way. The question for counsel is: If someone were to go to the courts with the French version, could they argue that the law was not being properly applied?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is the difficulty. In a nutshell, the department's response is: do not worry, we know what we are doing, and we are applying it; we have a reading and that is what we use.

The short answer to that response would be: That is fine, but the regulations should reflect that. By the time they make the amendment, the reality is that the program will have expired as a pilot project. If it were extended for another five years, then they should make the correction for the sake of consistency.

Mr. Szabo: The point is: We can let this one go but if the department's attitudinal position is that it does not matter in the future either, then when is it appropriate for the committee to let the department know that it is not good to say, do not worry; we know what we are doing?

Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, we would write to let them know that the committee is still of the view that the problem should be corrected, and that the committee recognizes that the program is due to expire. If the program is to be extended, then the committee expects the amendment will be made.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): That approach would work. Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

FEE SCHEDULE — FEES TO BE PAID FOR MARINE NAVIGATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CANADIAN COAST GUARD

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

Mr. Bernhardt: The coming into effect of this fee schedule resolved several matters concerning an earlier version of the schedule. However, 11 points were raised in connection with the new fee schedule. Amendments were promised in respect of points 2 through 7, 9, and 10. In addition, as the note prepared for members explains, the response to point 1 can be considered satisfactory. That leaves points 8 and 11 as unsatisfactory.

Point 8 concerns the charging of interest on overdue fees. There is no authority in the Oceans Act for the charging of interest and in any event, the Financial Administration Act and its supporting regulations provide for the paying of interest on amounts due to the Crown.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recognizes this situation but it says it would still prefer to have the fee schedule deal with interest so that the reader does not have to deal with the interest and administrative charges regulations. As the note explains, at the least, this approach creates confusion in that it is misleading as to the source of the requirement to pay interest and can result in inconsistencies between the two sets of provisions. In short, the question of interest is dealt with fully elsewhere, so there is no need, as well as no authority, to deal with it here.

Point 11 concerns fees for a service or use of a facility that are based, in part, on the gross tonnage of the ship. As we read the relevant case law on dealing with a fee for service, there must be some reasonable connection between the amount of the fee and the cost of providing the service. If there is no reasonable connection, the fee might be, in fact, a tax. The Supreme Court has ruled that this test must be applied not only globally but also in respect of each person paying the fee for service. The question is whether it is cheaper to provide the services in question to smaller ships.

The department points to a court decision in Canada v. Mid-Atlantic Minerals Inc. in which the fees were challenged and upheld by the courts. However, the issue was whether the schedule could distinguish between foreign and domestic ships, not whether the amounts charged bore a relationship to the cost of the service. From the information we have to date, there does not appear to be a relationship between the cost of the service in each instance and the amount charged for the service, as the Supreme Court's analysis seems to require. Therefore, it is open to conclude that sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the fee schedule are not valid because they constitute an unlawful tax.

I suggest that the issue be pursued through further correspondence.

Mr. Wappel: Chair, I have a question for counsel. At page 3 of the memo in the English version, the large paragraph ends with: "If we assume, for the sake of argument, that section 15 is only a means of conveying information and making things easier for those subject to the 1998 Fee Schedule." This sentence makes no sense.

What does that sentence mean? It would finish the sentence in English.

Mr. Bernhardt: It serves no legislative purpose. It is not appropriate for it to be there. This is a law, not an information bulletin. The sense we are seeking to convey is that if the only reason they put it in these regulations is to inform people that they are required to pay interest pursuant to some other legislation, then it is not the appropriate place to do so.

Mr. Wappel: I understand.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, that is an error in translation.

Mr. Wappel: I concur with counsel's recommendation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Are there other comments? Are members wearying of policing fees across this great country?

Mr. Wappel: Do you mean taxes?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I refer to taxes disguised as fees. We have an obligation to pursue this item under the current law. Charging fees for ships on the ocean is not a sexy envelope of policy for many of us but the law is fairly clear. I say this with a fair bit of respect: The Supreme Court is not helping us to clarify the matter.

They seem to settle one issue and open other issues in doing so in terms of fees and taxes. We will not speak to the most recent Supreme Court decision today, will we? There was a recent Supreme Court decision you will be familiar with.

We will take counsel's advice on this. What do you recommend?

Mr. Bernhardt: A further letter; at this point, either the letter could go back to the department or we could write to the minister directly.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Do you believe we have exhausted our welcome at the department on this item?

Mr. Bernhardt: They have raised the case. We have not written back pointing out that the case is not on point. I suppose we could take another kick at that particular cat.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Let us clean it up and prepare it for the minister possibly by going back to the department one more time. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-227 — IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Abel: Despite the daunting size of this file, I hope members will find that the situation is straightforward.

As the note accompanying the file indicates, 140 points of concern were originally raised concerning these regulations on January 5, 2006. Most of the points deal with issues of clarification of language, language equivalency between the two versions or the removal of conflicts or redundancies with other provisions of the regulations or with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Responses have been provided both by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and by the Canada Border Services Agency in accordance with their separate areas of responsibility. Amendments have been promised in relation to the vast majority of the points.

It is suggested that satisfactory replies have been provided in connection with 11 points, as set out in point 3 of the note. As indicated in point 4, replies are still forthcoming from the Canada Border Services Agency in respect of 10 points.

Finally, it is suggested that a sole unsatisfactory response so far is given in relation to point 22. This issue concerns section 42(2) of the regulations, which prohibits an officer from allowing a foreign national to withdraw their application to enter Canada or to leave Canada if a report is being prepared, or has been prepared, under section 44(1) of the act in respect of that person.

They are prohibited from being able to leave

. . . unless the Minister does not make a removal order or refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing.

The problem is that the condition relating to the minister's actions is open-ended. In other words, at what time can the foreign national finally be allowed to withdraw their application or leave if the minister has not yet acted?

The Canada Border Services Agency is reluctant to set out a fixed time frame in this case in which the minister must act. However, this time frame is not entirely necessary. The problem arises due to the manner in which the provision is crafted, specifically being conditional on the minister not doing something. If it is intended that the condition be resolved when the minister decides not to act, there should be no reason the provision cannot be clarified along these lines.

If the committee agrees and is satisfied at this point in the file, a further letter can be drafted. As well, counsel can follow up, requesting the status on the outstanding replies.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Are we agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): This file is an inch thick. It could be all that we will have on the agenda. That is great, however; it was well handled by counsel.

Mr. Bernhardt: I think this file is a record for the largest, longest correspondence in committee history.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Colleagues, I will take the regulation portion of this file, which is about 40 per cent of the bundle, and I will repackage it and leave it in my constituency office. For those of you who do immigration work, and most of us do, it might come in handy as another copy of the regulations that govern most of the day-to-day operations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I only mention that. I will not try to recycle it; I will try to reuse it.

Mr. Bernhardt: If you want the RIAS, it becomes that thick.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Yes, the regulatory impact analysis statement is another two inches thick.

In any case, we have disposed of it.

SOR/2002-346 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Bernhardt: The issue here is identical to the one the committee dealt with at the last meeting in connection with the first-class letter rate. Under the Pilotage Act, the pilotage authority can make regulations setting the time and fixing the fee for any examination relating to the issue of a licence or certificate and the fee for issuing a licence or certificate. The regulations then provide for an automatic increase in the fees each year, based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index.

The question is whether this formula fixes the fees. The note prepared for members this morning distinguishes between two types of formulas. The first is where the factors used for the calculation do not vary after the regulations are made — for example, so much a pound, so much a day, et cetera. In these cases, anyone who wants to know how much a licence will cost can do the calculation.

The second type is where at least one factor used will vary after the regulations are made. This type is what we have here. It is impossible to know what the fee will be in any future year under the regulations as they now read.

The committee has never objected to the first type of authority to make regulations. Even the second type is permissible where there is a broad authority to make regulations respecting the manner of determining a fee, or to make regulations concerning a fee. The objection arises only where what is required is that the fee be fixed or prescribed.

In this instance, the department has not accepted the committee's view. It relies on several court decisions. All these cases, however, concern formulas of the type to which the committee has never objected, or they concern regulations made under sufficiently broad enabling powers, or they deal with other issues.

Much of the analysis found in the note is applicable also to the Canada Post regulations. We will synthesize it into the materials prepared when that file comes back before the committee. In the meantime, it is suggested that the issue also be pursued here under the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations.

At this time, a letter to the minister is perhaps the appropriate vehicle.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are there any questions or comments? We are agreed.

SOR/2002-421 — CANADIAN FORCES EMPLOYMENT EQUITY REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Abel: A letter dated May 7, 2007, in respect of this file brought two points of concern to the attention of the Treasury Board. A reply was received on December 18, 2007.

In relation to the second point, an amendment is promised to correct a minor omission. In respect to the first point, clarification was sought as to the meaning of the term, "national security requirements," as it applies to the information handling by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Employment Equity Review Tribunal and either their officers or agents.

The reply states that the meaning of the term "national security" is still under debate, and it would be preferable to allow more time to allow for the term to "evolve" through further judicial treatment.

Notwithstanding that this reply indicates that the regulation maker did not understand the meaning of the provision when it was made and still does not, the issue in this case is not the meaning of "national security" exactly, but rather what is obliged by "national security requirements" in this particular scheme. If the department does not know what the national security requirements are under this provision, how is a person governed by the provision expected to know what those requirements are?

It is suggested that the nature of the requirements must be spelled out with more precision in these regulations, not the meaning of "national security." Perhaps a further letter can be drafted, pointing out this need to the department.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Wappel: I agree, but I am confused about two or three of these items as to where they were placed in the agenda. I would have thought this file would be listed under "Reply Unsatisfactory?" as opposed to "Part Action Promised."

We include the item under "Part Action Promised" because of point 2, which is virtually nothing, and then we have this large issue of national security requirements and everything else not accepted.

The same applies to two or three of these items. The fees item was another one. It is Part Action Promised; yes, they promised to change a few words in French. However, the greater issue has not been accepted. I do not think the file should have been placed under Part Action Promised in either case.

I thought the explanation of why they could not define "national security" was interesting. However, I take Mr. Abel's point and I agree that we pursue the issue.

Mr. Bernhardt: In connection with the first point, it is always an issue when we have a mixed bag of matters. I suppose our traditional approach is that, if action was promised on anything, it went under Part Action Promised. It saves us from having to make the judgment as to whether it is 50 per cent "good" or 40 per cent "bad."

I am willing to change that practice, if the members would like a better indication of where, if we have 15 points, which points are the serious ones and where they lie. That is something we can try to do by changing that practice. It is a matter of the habit we have fallen into.

Mr. Wappel: From your point of view, if you put a question mark, you are covered. It is up to us to decide. However, if you have 15 small drafting points and one substantive issue, and all 15 small drafting points are accepted by the department and the substantive issue is not, I do not think it should be put under Part Action Promised.

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose we can subdivide.

Mr. Wappel: We do not want to go to ludicrous extents.

Mr. Bernhardt: I agree, but we can do our part. In that case, rather than preparing a simple checklist, we will exercise some judgment. If it looks like significant things are still outstanding, we will put it under Reply Unsatisfactory.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Counsel can look at his rating system. In the meantime, we have counsel's recommendation. Are we agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Counsel, you have nailed the issue. However, I wanted to reframe it and use words of my own. It is not appropriate — it may not even be legal — for the department to rely on code words that only they know the meaning of when they draft regulations governing citizens. In this case, they do not know the meaning of the code words, "national security," but they are using them as if they are clear enough for people to rely on. That is inappropriate.

If they cannot tell citizens what the code words mean, then they are not useful for the citizen. The citizen must wait until we determine their meaning and then the bureaucrats will tell them what they mean. Bureaucrats might not even tell them what the words mean or what they involve because it is national security and is classified.

It is almost like a Catch-22. I think this item is a substantive one and we should firm it up. I hope my words on the record are helpful.

Mr. Wappel: In theory, at least, we know what "national security" means, at a minimum. According to Noel J. in his decision, it means the preservation of the "Canadian way of life" — I would like a definition of that — "including the safeguarding of the security of persons, institutions and freedoms in Canada." That is its meaning, according to the courts.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): It used to exclude homosexual activity by someone's fiat. I do not know what it means today.

Mr. Wappel: It may mean something different tomorrow.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): That is right. Mr. Justice's definition has been a little bit helpful in pointing out the moving target. I will stop there.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are we agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/86-236 — STATISTICS CANADA FEES ORDER, NO. 1

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

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee objected to these fees on the ground that in providing that the fee was the amount of the actual cost of providing the service, it could not be said to prescribe the fee payable. Back in 1989, Statistics Canada indicated that henceforth it would collect fees on a contractual basis and that the order would be revoked. Since then, progress can best be described as glacial.

In February, the committee was told that things should be wrapped up by the end of the fiscal year. This timeline has proven to be the latest in a long series of timelines not met. Here we are, some time later. Perhaps the chief statistician can be advised that, unless he can provide a firm deadline and unless that is adhered to this time, the committee will consider inviting him to appear.

Senator Harb: This has been 26 years?

Mr. Bernhardt: They are not using the order anymore. However, it has been sitting there and, for whatever reasons that are unknown in this room, they have simply not been able to pass a one-sentence regulation revoking the order.

Senator Harb: Would it not have expired over that period of time?

Mr. Bernhardt: It still sits on the books.

Senator Harb: Incredible: I subscribe to the opinion that we should bring him to the committee.

Mr. Wappel: I compliment counsel on placing this under Progress, question mark. My answer to the question mark would be no, there is no progress; it is glacial. It should have been March 31, as you pointed out, and I think we must take the position you have recommended. I agree.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): All agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): In all these categories, I am nervous now with Mr. Wappel at the end of the table. The next one is Action Promised, with a question mark.

SOR/2003-173 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEDICAL DEVICES REGULATIONS (1293 — QUALITY SYSTEMS)

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

Mr. Abel: Two concerns relating to this instrument were brought to the department's attention on May 8, 2007. A reply was received on December 17, 2007.

The first point dealt with an allusion in the regulations that a third-party registrar approved by the minister could suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a quality management systems certificate, though the regulations did not address suspension, cancellation or renewal of these certificates.

The department proposes to add, as another condition of approval of a registrar by the minister, that a registrar must issue, renew, suspend or cancel a certificate in accordance with the guidelines established by the International Organization for Standardization.

This response appears to be satisfactory. However, the department should be reminded perhaps that standards must be incorporated from any third-party organization in a fixed manner only, as there is no express authority in the Food and Drugs Act to incorporate the third party rules in an open matter, which is to say as amended from time to time.

Regarding the second point, the reply explains why the minister is granted discretion under section 32.5 and promises to amend the provision to add more detail as to when the discretion may be exercised. If this reply is considered satisfactory, counsel can draft a follow-up letter and inquire as to when the promised amendments can be expected.

Senator Harb: I have a question about this registrar. Someone would receive the certificate. Is there any provision in the regulation in the event that someone is no longer in business? What happens to that particular device if something malfunctions or someone messes with it? How, when and who takes the responsibility in trying to communicate the message, either to the public or to those who have a close contact with those devices?

Mr. Abel: That is a good question, but I cannot tell you offhand. We can come back with that answer at the next committee meeting, if you like.

Senator Harb: I am interested because it is an important matter. Other countries like England, Ireland and others throughout Europe have taken this responsibility seriously, especially in light of the fact that there are so many people with hip replacements and equipment they use in their daily lives. It is important for us to find out that regulation is, in fact, objective.

Mr. Bernhardt: It seems there is a detailed international standard and that is adhered to. The difficulty is that none of the standard is reflected in the regulations. Hopefully, when we have the amendments and that standard is incorporated, there will be a complete regime.

Senator Harb: It is wise for counsel to take the necessary time to review this item and, at a time in the future, prepare the communication as set out in the recommendation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Thank you, Senator Harb. Are there comments? Seeing none, are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-179 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Abel: Members should have copies of a letter received May 8, 2008, in respect of this file, which arrived after the preparation of the agenda. Of the five points outstanding since the committee's last consideration of this file, four have been addressed by amendments made by SOR/2006-256. The sole outstanding issue is a single promised amendment. The latest letter indicates that drafting has not begun on that amendment. If the committee is satisfied with the state of affairs, counsel will continue to monitor the file and will follow up in the regular course.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2007-65 — ORDER REPEALING THE CANADA SHIPPING ACT AND FIXING JULY 1, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001

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

Mr. Bernhardt: Section 332 of the Canada Shipping Act 2001 stated that with certain exceptions, the provisions of the old Canada Shipping Act "are repealed on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council." This order simply stated that "the Canada Shipping Act is repealed." It was noted that because of the exceptions, this was not entirely the case. It was suggested that it might be clearer in the future to list specifically the provisions of an act that are to be repealed.

The Department of Justice Canada, in its reply, indicates that it has revised its procedures and that this kind of information will be added at the end in an explanatory note. The department also points out that in this case, because those accepted provisions were repealed before this order was made, strictly speaking all that was left of the old Canada Shipping Act was repealed. In any event, the approach they seem prepared to adopt will provide the extra information to readers. It represents an improvement over the present situation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Is action required?

Mr. Bernhardt: We will monitor to see that the new procedure is put into place. Otherwise, the file can be closed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are there questions or comments? Seeing none, are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2007-99 — CERTAIN FORMER EMPLOYEES OF SDL OPTICS, INC. REMISSION ORDER

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

Mr. Abel: Two separate matters were raised in respect of this file. First, three printing errors in the Canada Gazette version of this order were brought to the attention of the Privy Council Office and an erratum was published on February 2, 2008. Second, confirmation was sought from the Canada Revenue Agency as to the intended application of section 3 of the order. The reply indicates that the apparent application is intended. Therefore, it is suggested that the reply be considered satisfactory.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-96 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FIREARMS FEES REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Abel: Pursuant to the Firearms Act and as set out in the executive portion of this instrument, the Minister of Public Safety is required to lay a statement before each House of Parliament following the making of this instrument, which occurred on May 17, 2006. Upon counsel's request, the department indicates that such a statement was tabled on November 29, 2007. The Journals of the respective Houses indicate that this was done on November 30, 2007, in the House of Commons and on December 4, 2007, in the Senate. As the act does not set any time frame in which the statement must be tabled, it is suggested that this be considered more or less satisfactory, given that it is within the letter of the law.

Mr. Bernhardt: It took 18 months of prompting from counsel for the department to have the statement tabled, but tabled it was.

Mr. Abel: Perhaps it is worth noting that it was tabled after counsel's first letter was sent.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are there comments?

Senator Harb: To counsel's knowledge, has this been applied or is it sitting on a shelf somewhere?

Mr. Bernhardt: This instrument was one of a series that pushes back the coming-into-force date. That is why government perceives no urgency to table these statements. They are simply putting things off for another year or two.

Senator Harb: Thank you for monitoring this file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-400 — CANADA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of document, see Appendix L, p. 10L:1.)

Mr. Abel: A letter dated March 12, 2008, from Human Resources and Social Development Canada indicates that the sole amendment sought by the committee in respect of this instrument is with the drafters at the Department of Justice Canada. If the committee finds this response satisfactory, counsel will continue to monitor the file accordingly.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are there questions or comments? Seeing none, are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/99-144 — ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/98-230 — PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/98-231 — PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/98-232 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AIRPORT TRANSFER REGULATIONS

SOR/99-3 — PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/99-247 — PORTIONS OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/2000-1 — CERTAIN CANADA PORT AUTHORITIES DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

SOR/2000-60 — PORTIONS OF THE CANADA PORTS CORPORATION DIVESTITURE REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Abel: Members will find that the note accompanying this file provides a brief history of the developments that have occurred since correspondence on these files began on February 3, 2000. Simply put, the committee has concluded that the various divestiture regulations in question were not authorized by the Public Service Superannuation Act, PSSA, when they were made. The authority to make such regulations has been added to the PSSA as of 2001. The department now seeks to add a further provision to the PSSA that would retroactively extend this authority back to 1996, thereby validating all the regulations in question. The proposed amendment is part of Bill C-50, the budget bill of February 26, 2008, which is currently before Parliament.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Are there questions or comments? Seeing none, are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lee): It might be risky to piggyback amendments on a budget implementation bill in this Parliament. However, if it works, that is great.

SOR/2002-18 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COMPETENCY OF OPERATORS OF PLEASURE CRAFT REGULATIONS

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

Mr. Abel: Of the six points first raised in respect of this instrument on October 4, 2004, two promised amendments remain outstanding. Transport Canada's letter dated August 1, 2007, indicated that the amendments will be made in early 2008. Clearly, that time has come and gone. A letter received recently that is not included in today's agenda material states that the amendments are expected to be finalized in early summer. If this response is satisfactory, counsel will continue to monitor the file and will provide copies of the most recent letter when the file is next before the committee.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-263 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE FISHERIES ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

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

Mr. Bernhardt: Members have before them an update from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, on the review of the various fisheries regulations that establish close times. The department's eventual goal is to address the concern that token close times and year-round close times are contrary to the terms of the definition of "close time" in the Fisheries Act. As the department notes, the review of two regulations, the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 and the Marine Mammal Regulations, has been completed. The resulting amendments have been made. Other regulations are being looked at when other proposals to amend them are being studied. The department's letter refers to the enormity of the task and the many officials from various levels of government involved. DFO concedes that much remains to be done, although there is no doubt that concrete progress has been made. Efforts seem to be ongoing and I suggest that counsel continue to monitor the file.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/99-256 — CANADA COOPERATIVES REGULATIONS

SOR/2001-513 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA COOPERATIVES REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 10P:1.)

SOR/2003-458 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BROADCASTING DISTRIBUTION REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix Q, p. 10Q:1.)

SOR/2007-89 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ELECTRICITY AND GAS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix R, p. 10R:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: We can take "Action Promised," "Action Taken" and "Statutory Instruments Without Comment" as three groups. There are four instruments in respect of which action is promised. They reflect a total of five promises of amendment. Progress on these instruments will be followed up as usual after the meeting.

SOR/2008-81 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEETINGS AND PROPOSALS (INSURANCE COMPANIES AND INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-82 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEETINGS AND PROPOSALS (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-316 — MEETINGS AND PROPOSALS (INSURANCE COMPANIES AND INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-317 — MEETINGS AND PROPOSALS (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix S, p. 10S:1.)

SOR/2008-83 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DISTRIBUTING BANK AND DISTRIBUTING BANK HOLDING COMPANY REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-84 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DISTRIBUTING COOPERATIVE CREDIT ASSOCIATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-85 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY AND DISTRIBUTING INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANY REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-86 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DISTRIBUTING TRUST AND LOAN COMPANY REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-303 — DISTRIBUTING BANK AND DISTRIBUTING BANK HOLDING COMPANY REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-304 — DISTRIBUTING COOPERATIVE CREDIT ASSOCIATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-305 — DISTRIBUTING COMPANY AND DISTRIBUTING INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANY REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-306 — DISTRIBUTING TRUST AND LOAN COMPANY REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix T, p. 10T:1.)

SOR/2008-87 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CIVIL REMEDIES (INSURANCE COMPANIES AND INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-88 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CIVIL REMEDIES (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-301 — CIVIL REMEDIES (INSURANCE COMPANIES AND INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-302 — CIVIL REMEDIES (TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix U, p. 10U:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under "Action Taken," there are three groups of instruments. In each case, the groupings reflect common points and the amending regulations correct the original regulations. In total, 12 promised amendments have now been made.

There is one further note there. On the large second group of instruments under "Action Taken," there is also correspondence with the Privy Council Office concerning the fact that certain corrections were made to these orders when they were published in the Canada Gazette.

Of course, any change to a regulation that is made by the Governor-in-Council, or indeed any other authority, can be made only by means of a formal amendment to that regulation. This is so no matter why the change is required or how minor it is. To conclude otherwise would be to confer on those publishing the Canada Gazette the power to amend the law. Privy Council Office has confirmed that it recognizes and accepts the principle.

SOR/82-435 — VANCOUVER HEAVY LIFT CRANE TARIFF BY-LAW, AMENDMENT

SOR/2005-14 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULES 1 TO 3 TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT

SOR/2006-319 — PROSPECTUS (COOPERATIVE CREDIT ASSOCIATIONS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-4 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2007-5 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2007-6 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2007-7 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2007-47 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2007-52 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986

SOR/2007-64 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2007-84 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2007-127 — VESSEL DETENTION ORDERS REVIEW REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-155 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2007-190 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2007-199 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2008-4 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2008-5 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2008-13 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986

SOR/2008-15 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2008-18 — ORDER AMENDING PART III OF SCHEDULE VI TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SOR/2008-31 — REGULATIONS REPEALING THE COOPERATIVES TARIFF OF FEES (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2008-35 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1551 — SCHEDULE F)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under "Statutory Instruments Without Comment" are 22 instruments that have been reviewed and found to comply with all the committee's scrutiny criteria.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Thank you, counsel. Are there any questions or comments for counsel before we terminate the meeting? There being none, the meeting is terminated.

The committee adjourned.