---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 12 - Evidence, June 12, 2008

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 12, 2008

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:30 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 begin with the Special Agenda Item on the agenda, dealing with the Letter Mail Regulations.

SOR/2000-221 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LETTER MAIL REGULATIONS

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: Mr. Chairman, this file was before the committee at the last meeting. At that time, it was the general view of members that the minister should be advised that after hearing from witnesses the committee's view remains that the Canada Post Corporation Act must be amended if it is to permit an automatic fee increase mechanism, such as that found in section 3 of the Letter Mail Regulations; and that in the absence of an undertaking to do so, the committee will explore the possibility of recommending disallowance to the Houses.

Counsel was asked to look into the ramifications of the disallowance of all or a portion of section 3 of the regulations. That has been done and that discussion has been added at paragraphs 22 to 24 of the note that members have this morning. To summarize, it is suggested that any disallowance should include subsections (4) to (6) of section 3. Section 3 is now reproduced in its entirety in the note. This would leave subsection 3(1) as the governing provision and thus return the domestic basic letter rate to the amount set out in the schedule when it was first enacted in 2000, which was 46 cents. I emphasize, however, that it would be open to Canada Post to amend the schedule at any time to prescribe some other rate, including the rate it now charges.

Following adoption of a disallowance by the Houses, the relevant provisions would still have to be revoked formally by the regulation-making authority. It would be a simple matter at that time to amend the schedule so as to avoid any rollback to the 2000 rate. After that, rate changes would be implemented by means of amendments to the schedule to the regulations until such time as the act might be amended to permit the kind of formula currently in the regulations.

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

Ms. Barnes: This is an excellent memo, and I am glad we took the extra step to point out the procedure and its potential effect. Counsel did a good job in distinguishing the actions. I appreciate the good work.

Senator Bryden: That is what I wanted to say. The work is clear and the committee should proceed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Are members agreed that we proceed with notice?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I would ask counsel to give 30-day notice.

Mr. Szabo: Given that the House will rise next week for some time, is there anything else we should give instructions to staff on with regard to a follow-up? It is unfortunate that we give a 30-day notice and then we become part of the problem. I put that to the committee for comments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): They know what to do. They will prepare a disallowance report.

Counsel, would you fill in some of the gaps for Mr. Szabo?

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose I would get a little guidance as well. I presume that in addition to simply giving the notice, we would also send Canada Post and the responsible minister a detailed letter setting out the committee's reasons, following the outline of the note. Over the summer, we would prepare a draft of the disallowance report to be presented to the committee when sittings resume in the fall.

The other question at this time is whether that letter would state that it is anticipated that the disallowance would go forward in the absence of an undertaking to take corrective action quickly. We may or may not have a reply from the corporation and the minister, together with the draft report, when we come back in the fall.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Perhaps members would agree that if the regulation were to remain unamended and no specific undertaking were received by the time the 30-day period has ended, we would proceed with the disallowance when next we meet. That is succinct.

Mr. Szabo: I want to understand the process. Let us assume there is a negative response or no response, would counsel still circulate the report to the committee? It has to be tabled in both Houses. Could we set up an auto pilot situation such that when the 30 days has lapsed and we prepare to do the disallowance, we could do a back-door tabling as well?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The problem is that we have not adopted a disallowance report here. We have decided to give notice. We do not have a draft in front of us we could approve today. I suppose we could have, but that was not the will of the committee the last time we met.

I could ask what is the rush, but we could be in a situation in the fall where we might never get a chance to complete the disallowance procedure. Not only do we have to introduce it into both Houses, there is a time clock that runs after that which allows the minister a window to respond before there is any deemed order of the Houses.

Are you asking if there is a quicker way to do this than putting it over to the fall?

Mr. Szabo: On your point about whether we may get an opportunity, it is possible that we may not get an opportunity to further deal with this matter. In my view, tabling the disallowance documents in the Houses brings us to a very important stage that would be easy for a future committee to pick up.

Would the committee entertain the idea that the joint chairmen be authorized to review the draft disallowance and proceed with the tabling in both Houses on a back-door basis, if possible?

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): The idea is that it could be done during the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Szabo: Anytime after 30 days.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): I was thinking of being able see and approve the report itself.

Mr. Szabo: Just authorize the chairs to make the necessary review and, on behalf of the committee, to sign off.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I have just been advised that before our committee could do a back-door tabling when the House is not sitting, we would need a House order. Getting a House order for that purpose might be extraordinary but not impossible.

Mr. Epp: When the minister and Canada Post find out about this intention, perhaps the issue will be corrected and we will have achieved our goal. Saying that this is now the intention of this committee may get their act together and hopefully, in the fall, corrective action will be taken.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): It is no one's fault that the summer recess is in front of us. We are just doing our work and we are doing it on a timely basis. The three-month hiatus is no fault of ours, if I can put it that way, and I think we should just work with it and be ready to do a disallowance in the fall.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): Conduct business as usual and just carry on with no extraordinary process.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Canada Post would be rather thick-headed not to take steps to deal with this matter, having received the 30-day notice. However, they have been thick-headed up until now.

Mr. Szabo: Maybe we will get their attention.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We do not know, but we will do our job. Thank you, Mr. Szabo, for suggesting a way to do it.

Counsel will give the 30-day notice, prepare a report and bring it back at our next meeting. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Moore: I have a hypothetical question. If we proceeded along the way that Mr. Szabo suggests, can the report be tabled with the clerks? Does Parliament have to be in session?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The clerk of the House has advised that in order for a committee to table a report back- door, as we call it, a House order would be necessary first.

Senator Moore: The House has to be sitting to give the order.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): It is not impossible to get these orders, but it might take a bit of finesse, given you will need all parties to agree to it and given that we are starting the clock running on a matter that the government minister will probably notice.

Senator Moore: My question was that given the fact that the Commons and the Senate may not be sitting, can the report be handed to the clerks of those two Houses, or do the Houses have to be sitting when it is tabled?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I will ask the clerk from the House and the clerk from the Senate. I just need a simple yes or no.

To the clerk from the House, can this committee introduce to the House a report of this committee for the purpose of disallowance without getting a House order first? I am talking doing so during the summer period.

Christine Lafrance, Joint Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The Senate?

Marcy Zlotnick, Joint Clerk of the Committee: I do not know the answer to that question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Okay, at least one of the Houses was clear. We do need some kind of a House order and we may or may not get it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): There is nothing wrong with Mr. Epp's suggestion that while we are not doing anything during the summer recess, we let the interested parties know what we are doing and they may volunteer to do the right thing as soon as we are back in session.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Yes.

We will go to the next item, under the next rubric ``Reply Unsatisfactory,'' although we have been advised by counsel that the Indian Timber Regulations were actually not that unsatisfactory. We will deal with them in this order anyway.

C.R.C. c. 961 — INDIAN TIMBER REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 12A:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: As has been indicated, I circulated a memo earlier this week pointing out that this item had been misplaced on the agenda, and I apologize for not picking that up sooner.

There were two points pursued in the correspondence. As the most recent letter from the department points out, the minor amendment to section 14 of the regulations was actually made some time ago. Unfortunately, this fact was lost track of over the years.

The other point concerns the revocation of section 30, which was an offence provision. The committee had originally objected because it failed to limit the amount of the penalty to the maximum allowed under the Indian Act, which is a fine not exceeding $100, imprisonment to a term not exceeding three months, or both. This was corrected, but the department advised that the provision was not being enforced. It was then suggested it should, therefore, be removed.

The department now proposes not revoking the provision, but rather eventually amending the Indian Act to permit a greater maximum fine. This obviously indicates that the provision in question is in fact being used, despite what the committee continued to believe. The amendment to render the provision lawful has been made, so there can be no objection to its use at this point. Therefore, I suggest the file could be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Sorry, I did not quite click in there. Are you saying that the statutory amendment to the Indian Act has already been made?

Mr. Bernhardt: No. Some time ago, they corrected the offence provision so it is limited to the maximum that can be charged under the Indian Act. At the same time, the committee was led to believe that the provision was not being used in any event. The committee went back and said, ``It is fine now; you have a legal provision, but if you are not using it, why not take it out?''

We are now advised that they are apparently using it, which is fine because it is legal. However, what they would like to do now, rather than take it out completely, is to eventually amend the Indian Act to allow them to go back to doing what they were doing in the first place. Again, that would be fine if they wait to amend the act to give them the power to do it.

It has been a bit of a shaggy dog story, but if they are using the provision, they have a provision they can legally use.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Is that satisfactory, then?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We will move on to the Goods and Payment of Duties Regulations.

SOR/2005-383 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ACCOUNTING FOR IMPORTED GOODS AND PAYMENT OF DUTIES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 12B:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Here the committee objected to the vagueness of the requirement that someone must be of ``good character'' in order to qualify for customs self-assessment. The Canadian Border Services Agency has its own internal criteria and guidelines to determine if someone is or is not of good character, and it was suggested that these should be set out in the regulations themselves.

The agency replied that it would not be practical to do this because they do not want to list every factor to be taken into account. They also argue the concept is an objective one, it has a known meaning and that a person who is refused could go to court to challenge the refusal.

I suggest the real point here is that if the agency can address the question of what it means to be ``of good character'' in its administrative manuals, why can it not do the same in the regulations? The issue is not what the courts take to be meant by ``good character,'' but rather what the agency is using here to give it meaning.

It is also pointed out that the term is used in other provisions and regulations. This is true. The committee has made the same objection to those other regulations. I also do not think it is an answer to say that if a regulation is unclear, someone can always go to court to receive a clarification.

At this point, if members agree, having gone back at least two or three times to the agency, perhaps it is time to take the issue up with the minister directly.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Could I put a stronger thumb print on that? My reading of this correspondence is that this agency is saying, ``We have rules and we cannot tell you exactly what they are, but if you do not like our rules and the enforcement, you can go to court.''

Mr. Bernhardt: Basically.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): That is not good enough, is it? I just wanted to put that on the record.

The next item falls under the heading ``Reply Unsatisfactory (?).''

SOR/77-595 — COUNTING OF SERVICE BY FORMER MEMBERS OF THE SENATE OR HOUSE OF COMMONS REGULATIONS, NO. 2

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 12C:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee's concerns here relate to provisions dealing with medical examinations. There are a number of provisions for which there is no authority, and there are also many matters that are dealt with in administrative documents such as forms, which ought to be subject of the regulations.

As members no doubt will have noticed, this file has been ongoing for a near-record length of time. On the other hand, apparently there has never been a case that required these regulations to be used. They would apply only where a former senator or member of the House of Commons were to join the RCMP.

Most recently, the RCMP has indicated that they will consider appropriate time frames this fiscal year. This is not much of a commitment. Perhaps, in the hope of getting some progress, the committee could ask for a firm date by which these amendments will be made.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I thought Senator Eyton was just thinking of a possible new career. His eyes lit right up.

Mr. Epp: I was about to suggest that I will soon be available for employment and I could be used as a test case.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chair, considering this file has been ongoing since 1978, I do not think it is an appropriate response to say that certain constraints continue to impact upon the policy centre's ability to complete these requisite changes in a timely manner. We are talking 30 years. That is an absolutely unacceptable sentence, and I really do think the reply is unsatisfactory for that reason alone, if nothing else. I do think we should pursue it, whether there is a likelihood that a senator or a member of the House will join the RCMP.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Thank you for noting the longevity of this file. It could be one of our oldest files. Is counsel aware of any that are older?

Mr. Bernhardt: It is certainly in the running. It must be in the top 10.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Are Mr. Wappel's words of guidance sufficient for you, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: Absolutely.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The next item falls under the heading ``Part Action Promised'' and has to do with the Pari-Mutual Betting Supervision Regulations.

[Translation]

SOR/91-365 — PARI-MUTUEL BETTING SUPERVISION REGULATIONS (BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON JUNE 14, 2007)

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 12D:1)

Mr. Rousseau: In their letter of July 3, 2007, counsel advised the department of the committee's comments about six points on which the committee wished the department to review its position.

In its reply of January 8, 2008, the department promised amendments on points 3 and 7.

On the four other points, although the department's response clearly suggests that there will be amendments to correct the problems indicated, the decision does not yet seem to have been definitely made. The letter received on June 4, 2008, after the agenda was prepared, that is, and distributed to committee members this morning, adds nothing on those four points.

Counsel recommends writing back to the department to find out if a final decision has been made. The same goes for points 2 and 8, on which the department seems to suggest that amendments are possible, but does not commit itself about that either.

Despite counsel's request in the July 3, 2007 letter, the department says nothing about those points in the letters that the committee has before it today. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write back asking for the department to confirm that there will, in fact, be amendments on all those points.

[English]

Mr. Epp: This letter we were handed when we walked in today says there has been an amendment that has been enacted by Parliament. Does that not satisfactorily answer this problem?

Mr. Rousseau: That amendment deals with another file.

Mr. Epp: It says SOR/91-365.

Mr. Rousseau: As well as SOR/2003-218.

Mr. Epp: In other words, this letter satisfactorily solved the problem of SOR/2003-218 but not SOR/91-365.

Mr. Rousseau: Right. That other file is not before the committee this morning.

Mr. Wappel: I have two comments. First, it was nice to see a letter succinctly saying the committee is agreed with, paragraph after paragraph. However, I am slightly confused and I am wondering if counsel can help us out.

If you notice the letterhead, it is from the Department of Justice Canada. The second last sentence on page 2 states:

The CPMA advises that it will bring your argument and this apparent discrepancy between the English and French versions in the Criminal Code to the attention of the Department of Justice.

Well, it was the Department of Justice that was writing to us. Is this a Peter-Paul situation where no one knows what is happening? What do they mean?

Mr. Bernhardt: It is a letter from the legal adviser to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. He is replying on behalf of his client, which is the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, advising us that his client has agreed to pass it on to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Wappel: Which is him.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, although I suspect it will come back to Ottawa. I know that Mr. McMahon wrote from Winnipeg. I assume now it will be referred to the regulation specialists here in Ottawa.

Mr. Rousseau: For drafting purposes.

Mr. Bernhardt: You are right: It is a bit of a Peter and Paul situation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I thought the correspondence looked pretty good. It is fairly complete, I would say. In any event, the issues remain. We will keep hacking away at it, as counsel suggests. Are we agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The next item relates to the Military Complaints Police Commission.

[Translation]

SOR/2002-241 — RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 12E:1)

Mr. Rousseau: As the note prepared for the committee indicates, committee counsel raised nine points. Amendments have been promised on four of those points, 3 and 6 to 8.

Committee counsel feels that the commission's response to points 2 and 4 are satisfactory for the reasons mentioned in the note. However, on point 2, counsel suggests amending some provisions of the rules so that, as in section 3, the commission must inform parties if its intention is to suspend the rules. This would simply reflect the commission's present practice.

In counsel's opinion, the responses on points 1, 5 and 9 are not satisfactory.

On point 1, the commission recognizes that the definition of the word ``commission'' simply duplicates the one already found in the National Defence Act. The note mentions the reasons why this is not acceptable, among them the implication that terms defined in the act can be redefined in the regulations.

In point 5, counsel pointed out that the statement in this provision that the commission must act informally and expeditiously under section 250.14 of the act is unnecessary. Contrary to the commission's claim, it is absolutely not essential for the rules to ensure that the parties are aware that the commission will exercise its authority under the act. This repetition of a provision already provided for in the act serves no purpose. Section 6 of the rules has no legal effect and should be deleted.

Point 9 is another case where the rules repeat what is already in the act. In addition, the effect of the rules is to restrict the authority to summon witnesses that Parliament itself has given the commission. Parliament has provided no statutory authority to restrict the commission's powers here.

Section 33.1 of the rules should be deleted. If the committee is in agreement, counsel can write back to the commission asking for it to review its position on points 1, 5 and 9.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The next item deals with the Food and Drugs Regulations.

[Translation]

SOR/2005-141 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1402 — DRUGS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F. p. 12F:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Committee counsel raised two points in this file. An amendment has been promised on the second point. The first point is a question that the committee has already had occasion to consider in other files.

The regulations require the minister to provide specified notices when certain conditions in the regulations are met. Counsel therefore indicated that, by failing to provide the required notice, the minister could incur criminal liability. The department recognizes that this is the case. To the extent that the department is aware of this possibility and accepts it, the committee's custom is to consider that the reply is satisfactory and that there is no reason to take any other position. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will monitor the file in the usual way and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

Mr. Wappel: In my view, this instrument and the following one should not have been put under ``Part Action Promised.'' I want to pay tribute to Brigitte Zirger for her direct response. Certainly, the minister is liable, and we want the minister to be liable so there can be judicial action. Yes, they delayed by waiting for the study but then realized that the study does not involve the issue and so they have agreed effectively to both elements in the committee's letter. It is simply a matter of following up to ensure that the amendment takes place.

I was curious as to why this item was put under ``Part Action Promised'' when they have agreed. Yes, we have to follow up, but we have to do that on everything. I thought they were good answers in both cases, nice and short: ``Yes, you are right; yes, we agree; and yes, we will do it.''

Mr. Bernhardt: We had two points. There was a promise of action on one and a satisfactory reply on the other. There is no promise of action because there was no need for action, so they fall under ``Part Action Promised.''

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The emphasis is on the word ``action,'' Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Bernhardt: You are also correct on the next file, to which I can only say, ditto.

Mr. Wappel: That is fine.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Mr. Wappel has already introduced us to the next item, which is the Medical Devices Regulations.

[Translation]

SOR/2005-142 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEDICAL DEVICES REGULATIONS (DEVELOPING COUNTRIES)

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 12G:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Counsel raised two points in this file. An amendment has been promised on the first point. As in the previous file, the second point deals with the provision in the regulations that requires the minister to provide specified notices. The reply is the same and should also be considered satisfactory. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will monitor the file in the usual way and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We now move to the Public Service Employment Regulations.

SOR/2005-334 — PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 12H:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chairmen, amendments have been promised to deal with the first three points raised in counsel's letter. The fourth point concerns section 19 of the regulations. It sets out the criteria for the disclosure of personal information by the Public Service Commission. It was suggested that the PSC be required to notify the person in question of the pending disclosure and to also provide an opportunity for the person to object.

The commission's reply notes that disclosure of personal information is already governed by the Privacy Act, and they question they need to provide any higher level of safeguard than as set out by Parliament itself in the Privacy Act.

This position likely has some merit. If members agree, the reply on point 4 could be accepted as satisfactory. That being the case, counsel will follow up on the three promised amendments.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I have a comment. We have had a number of files over the years with the Public Service Commission, and this one was quite complete. The relationship seems to be working well.

Next is the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations.

SOR/2007-33 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 12I:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Point 1 of the October 15, 2000, letter from counsel sought an explanation as to what types of service would be similar to Class ``A'' Reserve Service and, therefore, count as a day of service in the Canadian forces. The reply explains that the intent was to include Reserve Force service that was based on actual time worked as opposed to an elapsed time basis. However, I am not sure that this addresses the question.

Paragraph (2) of the relevant portion of article 9.06 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces deals with the basis on which members on Class ``A'' Reserve Service are paid. However, the definition of ``Class ``A'' Reserve Service'' is in paragraph (1), which states that any service that is not Class ``B'' or Class ``C'' is Class ``A.'' What types of service, then, are considered similar to Class ``A'' Reserve Service?

It is likely a simple case of the regulation not clearly reflecting the intended meaning. Perhaps a further exchange of correspondence on this point might shed some light on exactly what is meant.

On the other points, amendments are promised to deal with point 2. Counsel was advised that point 3 is still under review, so we need to follow up on that. Amendments are promised on points 4, 5, and 6. I would suggest that the explanation on point 7 is satisfactory, and amendments are promised to address points 8 and 9.

That leaves point 10. Clarification was sought as to whether the grandfathering provisions in these amendments excluded certain members of the Canadian Forces. The reply advises that those on ``an intermediate engagement'' are grandfathered. However, it does not answer the question of whether there are other members who were formerly eligible for an immediate, unreduced annuity after 20 years of Regular Force Service and must now complete 25 years of Regular Force Service. Perhaps it is worth asking the question again, if only to have a full picture of what these amendments do. I would suggest another letter on points 1, 3, and 10.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We will move on the first item of two under the rubric ``Reply Satisfactory.''

[Translation]

SI/2007-92 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2007-93 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 12J:1)

Mr. Rousseau: First of all, I point out that passing SI/2007-93 allowed the correction of a drafting error noted by the committee. In the correspondence on these two matters, the department confirmed that the title used to designate the responsible person for the purposes of these two acts corresponds to the one found in the letters patent of the Federal Public Service Health Care Plan Administration Authority. This explains the difference in wording between this designation and the other designations made for the purposes of the act. Committee counsel feels that this answer is satisfactory and, if the committee is in agreement, the file can be closed.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Now we will move on to the two items under ``Reply Satisfactory (?).''

SOR/2002-162 — GUIDELINES RESPECTING CONTROL IN FACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION 407.2(1) OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT

SOR/2002-163 — GUIDELINES RESPECTING CONTROL IN FACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION 377(1) OF THE BANK ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 12K:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Each of the two instruments listed here uses the terms ``significant subsidiary'' and ``significant dependency'' in connection with when banks or insurance companies are considered to have control of a subsidiary or be in a position of dependence on another person. The committee found these terms rather vague and suggested that definitions should be included in these instruments. The department, in reply, proposed to delete the word ``significant'' if that would address the committee's concern.

The term ``subsidiary'' on its own is defined in both the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act, so that would clearly resolve one half of the concern. The only question left is whether the term ``dependency'' on its own is sufficiently clear. The department has reiterated its explanation that this term is to be given its ordinary meaning and has no specialized technical significance.

I suppose that what is intended to be meant is that a bank or an insurance company is dependent on another entity if the bank or insurance company is not self-sufficient and relies on the other entity for its continuing existence. The question for the committee is whether it feels this is sufficiently clear and certain, or whether it is still of the view that some formal definition of the term ``dependency'' is necessary.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Counsel, I did not get it. I do not have a good picture of what a dependency is. It may be that in the insurance business, sometimes some of the laws are somewhat arcane. Perhaps they do have a reasonable picture of scenarios where a particular entity only exists because of the goodwill or corporate objective of another big entity, and they leave it in place because all the paperwork uses the name of the dependency.

Do you have a practical example of what is meant by a dependency? Did they offer one?

Mr. Bernhardt: No. I went scurrying around to my law dictionaries. What I came up with was if you are not self- sufficient, then the entity you rely on for your existence is an entity that you have a dependency on, in a corporate law context.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): This is the one we will chew on, I guess.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): I would say the word ``dependency'' is very general. Trying to interpret it means that you are trying to assess all sorts of relationships and their degree of intensity. I would have thought that the word is very imprecise.

Mr. Wappel: I think the word is imprecise, but I kind of like the answer. I like it because it makes it clear that ``it is intended to be understood in its ordinary meaning and has no specific, specialized or technical significance.'' That is pretty clear.

Given that, I would not run to my Black's Law Dictionary. I would go to the regular Oxford English Dictionary because it has no specific, specialized or technical significance, which one would presume would include a legal definition.

I am also comforted by the next sentence, perhaps naively: ``This approach was endorsed in extensive consultations with stakeholders and experts.'' Banking and insurance being very technical areas, I was inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept the reply as satisfactory. I think if we, as a committee, push this issue, we might be able to come up with a definition, but I do not think it is our job to define terms.

They are clearly comfortable and the stakeholders and experts are clearly comfortable with a non-specific word. Given what they said, you would go to the most generalized definition of that word, and that would be what would be used. Then it would be up to evidence in a particular case as to whether or not that was reasonable, given the circumstances.

When I read this letter, I felt that, yes, I could see why it was put under ``Reply Satisfactory (?),'' and I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Epp: When I was on the Banking Committee, we dealt with issues like tied selling. There were regulations in place that banks that also owned or ran insurance companies, be it car insurance or house insurance, were not able to intertwine their operations; they had to be totally separate. I think that may be what this refers to.

That being the case, then the word ``interdependency'' might fit better. In other words, if there is such a relationship, they have to keep their records totally separate.

Is that where this issue comes from?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): You may be close. There may be what we used to call a shell company out there that is kept in existence for corporate purposes.

Mr. Epp: You could not say, ``We will give you a mortgage on your house and will cut the rate by half a per cent if you also buy your insurance from us.'' That was not permitted.

The Joint Chair (Senator Eyton): It makes me nervous when I see a sentence from the department saying they have had ``extensive consultations with stakeholders and experts.'' The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has been tortured with Bill C-10, which involves a compendium of changes to the Income Tax Act. Apparently, they were prepared after extensive consultations with stakeholders. Clearly, it was not quite as extensive as we were led to believe, and we are wrestling with that now.

I am sure the term ``dependency'' can readily refer to 1,000 situations. Is the sales agency part of the relationship? Does it refer to full or partial financial backing in the relationship? What is dependent? Are you 51 per cent dependent or 10 per cent dependent? It is an odd word to interpret, and I suspect that it is interpreted conveniently. I am not sure any abuse or any ill consequence comes of it, but it sure does not meet the standard we generally look for in regulations.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I think that was well put. Can we leave it there?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We will move to the heading ``Progress'' and SOR/95-252.

SOR/95-252 —HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (LIGHTERS) REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 12L:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee is waiting for an amendment to section 3.2 of the regulations to ensure the validity of that provision. This amendment, along with other amendments, was pre-published last August for comment. Most recently, in March, the department advised that it expects these amendments to be made in the fall. If that is satisfactory, we will continue to monitor the file to see whether this timeline is actually met.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The next item concerns the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations.

[Translation]

SOR/2001-227 — MARIJUANA MEDICAL ACCESS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 12M:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, as the committee noted when it examined SOR/2007-207 at the meeting of last April 3, corrections have already been made in 18 of the 19 points originally raised in this matter. In its letter of March 18, 2008, the department informs us that the delay in making the final amendment is because of a court decision rendered last January 10. The proposed amendment is being drafted for publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Counsel will monitor the file in the usual way and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Moving to the next item, the Tetrachloroethylene Regulations.

[Translation]

SOR/2003-79 — TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (USE IN DRY CLEANING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 12N:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, this file dealt with a drafting matter. The department informs us that the correction should be made this year. Counsel will monitor the file in the usual way and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The next item is SOR/2006-168.

[Translation]

SOR/2006-168 — CERTAIN RUMINANTS AND THEIR PRODUCTS IMPORTATION PROHIBITION REGULATIONS, NO. 2)

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 12O:1 )

Mr. Rousseau: This file deals with regulations that the committee considers illegal. The agency has undertaken to have them repealed. In its letter of April 3, 2008, the agency informs us that they should be repealed this year.

If the committee is satisfied, counsel will monitor the file in the usual way and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Next we move into ``Action Promised.'' Are we doing these individually?

Mr. Bernhardt: We can do them as groups.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): If there is nothing outstanding to any particular member, counsel will deal with the next group as a block.

SOR/90-39 — HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (EXPANSION GATES AND EXPANDABLE ENCLOSURES) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 12P:1)

SOR/94-686 —INCOME TAX REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 12Q:1)

SOR/2007-108 — EXCLUSION LIST REGULATIONS, 2007

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 12R:1)

SOR/2008-43 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MARINE MAMMAL REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 12S:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under ``Action Promised'' this morning, we have four instruments in total. Amendments are promised to address 15 concerns. We will follow up progress on these in the usual fashion.

I would also note that SOR/94-686 and SOR/2007-108 also made five amendments that had been promised to the committee. SOR/2008-43 removes a number of token and year-round close times from the Marine Mammal Regulations, which is intended to, in part, address a committee concern.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The close times are still at work. This will go on for quite a few years, I gather. However, it is good to see progress. Thank you.

Is that okay with colleagues?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Then we will move on to ``Action Taken.''

SI/2008-26 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS (TUKTUT NOGAIT NATIONAL PARK, IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND NUNAVUT)

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 12T:1)

SOR/2008-77 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE VERIFICATION OF ORIGIN, TARIFF CLASSIFICATION AND VALUE FOR DUTY OF IMPORTED GOODS REGULATIONS (NON-FREE TRADE PARTNERS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 12U:1)

SOR/2008-89— ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (CHILDREN'S JEWELLERY) (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2008-90— REGULATIONS REPEALING THE CHILDREN'S JEWELLERY REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 12V:1)

SOR/2008-123 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION COST RECOVERY FEES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix W, p. 12W:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: There are five instruments under ``Action Taken.'' These make 19 amendments that had been promised to the committee. I would note, in particular, the amendment to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Cost Recovery Fees Regulations, which removes a provision authorizing the commission to retain over-payments and apply them to other amounts payable. The committee had concluded there was no authority for such a provision.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The last agenda item is ``Statutory Instruments Without Comment.''

PARKS CANADA MASTER LIST OF FEES

2006/07 — 2009/10

SI/74-2 — PUBLIC SERVANTS CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES

SI/88-77— PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER, AMENDMENT

SI/2008-1 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-2 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADA EMISSION REDUCTION INCENTIVES AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-3 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-4 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-5 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-6 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-7 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADIAN POLAR COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-8 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRIME MINISTER AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-9 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-10 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL ROUND TABLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-11 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-12 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-13 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-14 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-15 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2008-17 — PIERRE DUPUIS REMISSION ORDER

SI/2008-18 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 31, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SI/2008-19 —ORDER FIXING FEBRUARY 1, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

Mr. Bernhardt: Under this heading, we have 21 instruments listed that have been reviewed and found to comply with all of the committee's criteria.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): I find it remarkable that the Parks Canada Master List of Fees made it through without a snag this year. That is progress.

We have one minor administrative matter. It is something we could probably debate until the cows come home. Most of you will be aware that, over the last many years, the transcripts of our committee proceedings were not released until there was ample time to edit and ensure they were accurate in both official languages.

Recently, we have had an increase in the number of people who are seeking copies of our blues prior to any edit by our clerk or counsel.

In the past, we had always felt that given the technical nature of so much of our work, it was quite important for counsel to go back through the blues and ensure they were accurate before the Hansard transcript was produced. This was done to ensure that parties were not misled. For example, given the technical nature of the work, a change in a letter or tense might change the impact of it. However, there has been this increase in attention.

Our clerks have been trying to accommodate the requests. In fact, with the changeover in clerks, perhaps some of them were not aware of the previous standing policy that we did not release blues until we had a chance to edit.

That is the situation. I can ask for views and, if there are 10 people here, we will have 10 views.

I have been second-guessing the need for us to hang on to the blues until they have been fully edited. However, by the same token, I did not want to have a situation where there could be what I could call a ``standing request'' for blues; in other words, we began to develop a routine back-channel distribution of blues before they had been edited.

On an interim basis, between the clerks, Senator Eyton and I, the current arrangement is that if someone requests blues on an occasional basis, they can receive the blues unedited. However, I did not like the idea of having a standing order for the blues.

I am open to suggestions. It is an administrative issue, and I am inviting you to reconsider our long-standing policy of not distributing the blues until edited.

Senator Moore: They should be edited.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The world, of course, has changed over the last 20 years. We have gone digital. Information flies all over the place. We are not televised now, but we could be, which was not the case 20 years ago.

Mr. Epp: I am very curious to hear counsel's opinion.

Mr. Bernhardt: I would echo everything that Mr. Lee has said. In this day and age, it is a bit like trying to hold water back with a screen, to use that analogy. Perhaps we are trying to control something that simply cannot be controlled anymore.

As members know, there can be a considerable delay by the time an official committee's proceedings is published in its final form and the time a meeting of a committee is held — therefore, people are waiting.

We will continue to edit the blues so that when the final version comes out, it is correct. I should also add that when anyone does receive a copy of the blues, there is always a disclaimer attached essentially saying, ``These are the unrevised transcripts; they are not yet official. They may contain errors. Use them and rely on them at your own risk.'' That helps to address the problem as well, because we do put people on notice that if they receive the blues, this is what they are getting.

Mr. Epp: It seems that the difference between the blues and the final record in all of our proceedings, whether it is the House of Commons or in committee, is that attention is given to what the speaker intended to say. Every once in a while, when we are speaking without notes, we do not express ourselves in such a way that is clearly understandable; we become somewhat incoherent at times. I have observed that among others, of course, not so much from myself.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Present company exempted.

Mr. Epp: When you watch the video of a proceeding in the House of Commons while reading Hansard at the same time, frequently there are editorial changes which I think are valid. Sometimes I think they are not, but that is a judgment call.

In this committee, due to its technical nature, it might be worthwhile to ensure that people receive an accurate reading of what was intended.

Ms. Barnes: My question is about the current delay. Is it beyond the two weeks from meeting to meeting on a consistent basis?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Yes.

Ms. Barnes: How much beyond the two weeks?

Mr. Bernhardt: Right now, I think the most recent meetings for which we have the final edited copies are for February. I receive the blues when they become available, and I usually return them to Debates Services within a week.

Ms. Barnes: Is it months? You are doing February currently?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Ms. Barnes: Personally, I think a ``months'' time frame is unacceptable.

I also want to know how much editing is being done on a routine basis. Are there reams of editing or is it simply minor and occasional?

Mr. Bernhardt: They tend to be minor changes. As you know, small discrepancies in the case of statutes and regulations, such as the difference between section 43 and section 4(3) or between legal and illegal, can have a great effect.

Ms. Barnes: I agree, but the disclaimer is that this is unedited text from a public meeting. We saw people come into the meeting earlier and they had the information before any edited material goes out to offices. In this day and age of transparency and accountability, we elected members can live with the occasional misrepresentation of our words. It will be edited at some point and, in the interests of doing the public's work transparently, we should allow unedited material to go out.

Mr. Wappel: I agree that we should not be providing the blues as a matter of course, but on request. I am 100 per cent comfortable with the disclaimer that counsel suggested. When you receive the blues, you do what you want with them. If you want to rely on them, then you had better rely on the final version as printed in Hansard. That covers us off.

Ms. Barnes is absolutely right: You can tape this meeting and sit here and listen to it, so why have a huge delay for someone who is interested in the proceedings. I cannot believe that a multitude of parties requests committee blues on a bi-weekly basis. If so, perhaps they should visit a psychiatric hospital.

In any event, I fully agree with the chair that a disclaimer is sufficient to get us off the hook.

Mr. Bernhardt: We are pretty much talking about government departments.

Mr. Szabo: Is this committee being broadcast?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Yes.

Mr. Szabo: It is webcast and available on ParlVU. Anyone can listen to the proceedings of the committee. Why are we talking about this?

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: One of my questions has been asked. On the delay between the transcription of the blues and the editing, I am told that the February one has just been published. That is three months. How do we explain a delay of three months before the official version appears?

If the blues are issued before they are edited, we run the risk of sending out false information or things that need to be corrected. I think they should be edited before becoming official.

Who regularly asks for, or has access to, the blues before the official version?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: I am not sure of the process after we ship the corrected version back off. We can look into that to see whether there is a possibility of shortening the time. I rather suspect it is simply because of resources. Some work prepared by staff for Hansard and Journals needs to be out within 24 hours. That is the primary focus, and I suspect that they catch up on committee work during the summer and during prorogation. Again, I am not sure of the process after the blues are sent out from our office in a matter of days.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: I think that, at a future meeting, we should find out why it takes so long, how many blues are requested before final editing and which departments ask for access to them. Do we regularly produce the number of blues that are requested? If we are told that a number of departments are asking for them, if they do so every day, regularly, then something is wrong with the process. Should we add new staff? Can we shorten the delay to meet the demand and yet not distribute the documents before they are edited? I think it is dangerous to distribute a document before it is edited.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: I believe the clerks of the committee would have that information readily available because they receive the requests for the blues.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): The clerk has handed me a note. They receive one or two requests per meeting for the blues from government departments or the media. It is a short list. All committees of the House and probably of the Senate have the same problem with it taking a long time to get their transcripts out. Institutions and individuals need to see the blues to know what happened so they find out how to get them through the clerk of the committee, and they are routinely distributed. We had put a check on that because we were sensitive about a misinterpretation of some of the technical material in committee. We are a bit different from other committees in that we look at technical matters most often.

Senator Moore: Ms. Barnes spoke to most of my concerns. What is the time frame from the end of a meeting to the issuance of the record in final, edited form. Has that period of time been consistently a couple of months or is it getting longer?

Mr. Bernhardt: Over the years, it has been pretty consistent.

Senator Moore: Thank you.

Mr. Norlock: The disclaimer is sufficient. If that has been the history of getting out the blues, let us stick with it. If we are to debate this issue for any length of time because of two or three requests per meeting, then we are flogging a pretty tired horse.

Senator Bryden: I agree that we should continue the current process. I believe the frequency of requests is increasing. It is my experience on committee that we have tended recently to have more witnesses appear and we have had hearings downstairs when we have had big crowds. It is not strange that people appearing before the committee would like to see the blues to know whether they said what they think they said and to give them a chance to get back to us with any revisions regarding whether they were misunderstood or misspoke accidentally. I do not think it is being abused at this stage with the disclaimer.

[Translation]

Ms. Freeman: I do not agree with Mr. Norlock when he says that we should keep doing what we have done for so long. As Mr. Szabo said, there already is a recording to which people have access. So I do not see why we could not produce them with the notation that there may be corrections. We live in a time of transparency, we cannot change everything, people can come to the committee. There is no justification for holding back distribution for such a long time. I regularly read the blues of meetings that I would like to have attended, even if it is not the final version. I do that regularly.

[English]

(The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): We seem to agree that we will continue to release the blues informally, as we have done. I would ask that the two clerks coordinate the release. I do not know which House controls the printing, but I believe it is the Senate. As well, I would ask the clerks to monitor this on a coordinated basis so counsel can remain apprised. If a problem develops, he will advise the committee. Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Lee): Colleagues, I wish you all a pleasant summer. We will see you in the fall.

The committee adjourned.

---