---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 8 - Evidence, April 17, 2008

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, April 17, 2008

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

Mr. Ken Epp (Vice-Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Good morning. Our esteemed joint chairs are unable to be here so I have been asked to chair today's meeting. We will move to our first agenda item.

SOR/96-252 — SEEDS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 8A:1.)

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: The joint committee objected to provisions in the Seeds Regulations that impose recordkeeping requirements. The position of the committee is that such provisions require express enabling authority insofar as they create a substantive legal duty. In this case, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, although it conceded specific authority is lacking, sought to argue that there was, in their words, sufficient authority in the Seeds Act. Unfortunately, it is specific authority that is required.

The CFIA sought to rely on a variety of provisions. For the reasons explained in the joint chair's December 10 letter to the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, none of these provisions is sufficient. As the letter also noted, if regulation-making powers granted by Parliament are no longer adequate, the solution is to amend the Seeds Act rather than to resort to a strained construction of existing powers.

An assurance was sought that the Seeds Act would be amended to provide a lawful foundation for the provisions for which authority is currently lacking in the act and that these provisions would be either validated by the amending legislation or remade following its passage.

In his reply, the minister agreed that one of the three provisions in question is ultra vires and advised that it will be revoked in the near future. As well, the minister advised that options are being discussed with respect to the other two provisions and that a decision on action will be made in the near future.

When this file is followed up, the minister could be asked whether a final decision has been made on the other two provisions and what that decision is.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-111 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 8B:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Section 61.1 of the Meat Inspection Regulations,1990 deals with humane transportation of calves for slaughter. The committee concluded this provision falls outside the scope of the Meat Inspection Act because the act is concerned only with the wholesomeness of meat products.

Section 61.1 was to be revoked and a similar provision added to the Health of Animal Regulations, where it properly belongs. In the March 31 letter, the minister indicated this change should be completed by May 2008. He also gave assurance that section 61.1 is not being enforced pending its revocation and re-enactment in the Health of Animals Regulations. Counsel will monitor this file to see whether the projected time frame is met.

Mr. Wappel: I compliment the minister for sending two succinct and direct letters acknowledging precisely what the committee wants the department to acknowledge. Kudos to him.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are there further comments? Members are agreed that the file be monitored.

SOR/2003-284 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 8C:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: The repeal of section 43(1) of the Canada Grain Regulations by this instrument means that an elevator operator is no longer required automatically to issue a cash purchase ticket after 90 days. The intent of this change was to remove the requirement that the operator automatically provide payment in full to producers of grain within 90 days of delivery. The joint committee has taken the position that section 68.1 of the Canada Grain Act must be read as requiring the prescribing of such a period.

The minister's reply of July 31, 2007 notes that Bill C-39 is before the House of Commons and would resolve the committee's concern by revoking section 68.1 of the Canada Grain Act. It is simply a case of monitoring the progress of the bill at this time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-651—ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 8D:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: These provisions impose recordkeeping requirements in the absence of express authority. In addition, the Energy Efficiency Act imposes reporting requirements on dealers. In this case, the regulations attempt to go beyond the provisions in the EEA.

In the previous session, Bill C-30 would have provided the authority that is absent currently. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass. Although the Department of Natural Resources advises that updating the EEA remains a priority, it is unable to give any assurance that this will happen in the current session. Perhaps the minister could be advised that, unless the new bill is imminent, the objectionable provisions in the regulations should be revoked without further delay.

Senator Harb: I presume there is no bill in the works to be introduced in the House.

Mr. Bernhardt: The relevant bill was introduced in the previous session. We suppose it would be a case of reintroducing the same bill.

Senator Harb: It is controversial. For that reason, I agree with counsel's recommendation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are there further comments?

Mr. Szabo: This situation arises from time to time in respect of pending legislation but it does not seem to be considered a major issue. There does not seem to be any clear rationale as to why a new bill has not been put forward, and why either House would not fast track the bill simply because it is the right thing to do. It is not contentious.

I do not suggest that we should be suspicious of motivations, but this situation is a case of an opportunity to reinstate a bill where it stood in the legislative process when Parliament prorogued. Otherwise, it often happens that any work done on the bill in the previous session is lost and the legislative process must begin anew.

The flag should go up on this file if it is indeed as straightforward as all would seem to agree. There is little justification for government not proceeding with the bill in this session.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): The comment is noted for the record. I am sure the minister will read it and pay close attention. Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2006-241 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (DATA PROTECTION)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 8E:1.)

Jacques Rousseau, Counsel to the Committee: Mr. Chair, when this item was examined on February 14, 2008, the committee noted that the letter sent by the department on July 24, 2007 was in no way a response to the comments made by committee counsel on May 23, 2007. After that meeting, counsel therefore wrote back to the department asking for a reply, and to indicate that, if a detailed, substantive reply was not forthcoming, representatives from the department would be invited to provide the reply in person. The department explained that it never received the letter of May 23, 2007. It sent a reply on March 10, 2008. The committee has therefore received the requested reply and there is consequently no need to call departmental representatives.

That said, Mr. Chair, in counsels' opinion, the reply is not satisfactory. In point 1, the department explains that the intent of the provision is to clarify the context in which section C.08.004.1 of the regulations is to be interpreted. That is not what the provision in question says; it says that the section applies to the implementation of the agreements mentioned, which is anything but clear. The department also writes that the provision highlights the fact that the amendments to the regulations are ``within the scope of the enabling authority,'' that is, valid, which makes no sense in this context.

In point 2, which deals with the wording of the regulations, the committee had suggested either deleting the word that gives rise to the confusion or defining some other words. The department wishes to keep the word in question, but says that it will consider the possibility of adding the definitions suggested by the committee in a future regulatory review. It would be appropriate to insist that the department undertake to add these definitions in a reasonable amount of time.

The third point deals with two provisions that impose, respectively, a prohibition and a mandatory requirement on the minister. Under the enabling legislation, every person who contravenes any of the provisions of the regulations is guilty of an offence. This was brought to the department's attention. In its reply, the department makes a distinction between the minister contravening the regulations and a person other than minister contravening the same regulations. The department states that it does not think that the minister would attract criminal liability. This conclusion is simply in error. A minister is subject to a general provision on contraventions just like everyone else. The committee has already had to address this issue in other matters. For this item, the committee asked the department to recognize that ministers are not above the law. I have to point out that the Department of Health has recognized this in other matters, but not here. It is appropriate to point out the inconsistency.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel could write back to the department about these three points.

[English]

Senator Harb: I am a bit puzzled by the position taken by the department that an innovator is, in essence, a manufacturer. Perhaps, they need to further qualify that point and explain to us. How did they come to that conclusion? How often will someone who is an innovator and creates something become a manufacturer?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: In practical terms, I cannot give you an answer as to how many times it happens or whether it happens often. The department tells us that the innovator can also be the manufacturer and so he can also end up being the subsequent manufacturer. They wanted to make a distinction between manufacturer and subsequent manufacturer, without being able to explain exactly why the distinction was necessary. As we always say, and as the committee tells departments time and time again, if two different words are used in legislation, people try to find the difference. Here, the reply the committee received was not satisfactory and we have reached the point where the department is offering to define certain words in order to clarify the situation. If it wants to keep the word ``subsequent,'' it has to define other terms that will clarify the situation.

[English]

Mr. Wappel: One point 3, you mentioned that this has come up previously. It has come up relatively recently, as I recall but I cannot recall whether whoever we were writing to agreed with our point. If they did — I think you said it was the Department of Health itself — then obviously that should be mentioned in any correspondence with them to indicate that the same department said two different things.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Anyone else? Counsel has recommended we write them a letter. Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2006-95 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

(For text of document, see Appendix F, p. 8F:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Having reviewed this item again yesterday, it possibly could have been ``Satisfactory?'' The nuance is slight.

In any event, section 11 of the Canadian passport order requires a person to return a passport if required to do so by Transport Canada. Failing to return it, however, is not one of the grounds on which a passport can be revoked. This situation was pointed out to the department and the department advised that they will take it into account when the order is next amended.

I suppose it is a matter of policy whether failure to return a passport when required to do so should be grounds for revocation. If the department is not bothered by the fact and wishes to consider it somewhere down the road, that could be the end of that item for the committee.

The department was also asked what actions are taken when a holder fails to return a passport when required to do so. The reply is that the police and the Canadian Border Services Agency are notified. I presume this notification is to facilitate the confiscation of the passport if the authorities come across it at some point. Passports remain the property of Her Majesty even after they are issued.

Nevertheless, the passport remains valid. No offence has been committed by failing to return it, so it might be open to ask why the police are notified. The question is whether the committee wishes further confirmation of these details from the department. If the committee is satisfied with the explanation, the file can be closed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): If the RCMP and other police agencies are informed, presumably they can confiscate the passport. Under what law would they confiscate it?

Mr. Bernhardt: Even after a passport has been issued, it is not the property of the passport holder. It remains the property of Her Majesty. Having required someone to return the passport, and if the passport has not been returned, I suppose Her Majesty can take the passport back. The fact remains, however, that the passport is still valid and the holder has not committed any offence by not returning it. They are free to use the passport until such time as a representative of the Crown decides to remove it from their possession.

I expect, since they talk about putting it on the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, if it comes to the attention of authorities in some way that someone is in possession of a passport they were asked to give up, the authorities will simply take it from them.

Senator Harb: In this case, I think the department says they cancelled the passport from their end by notifying the authorities. When this passport shows up at the border, it is not valid anymore.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is the problem. The passport is still valid, but they do not need to let the holder keep it. The situation is a bit incongruous but I suppose it works in practice.

Senator Harb: The passport is valid for as long as the holder can use it to travel. When they arrive with it at the border, it is no longer valid because it is in the hands of the authorities.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is if the authorities choose to take it. If they do not, for example, enter the information in CPIC, they use the passport and they go through. They have not done anything wrong. The onus is on the authorities to decide whether they should have the passport anymore.

Senator Harb: I take the position we close the file. It seems the department is satisfied with that situation.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is the thing. We have pointed out the incongruity to the department; they have recognized it. It is up to the department whether they want to deal with the situation or not.

Senator Moore: I am looking at my passport. It says the passport is the property of the Government of Canada. It must not be altered and you must take every precaution to safeguard it. There is nothing here about turning it in.

Mr. Bernhardt: When the department notifies the police, they have asked the holder to give back the passport and the holder has not. That passport remains in effect. The holder has not broken any law by not returning it. However, authorities can take it back any time they wish because it is still the property of the government. Presumably, having notified the police that the holder did not give back the passport when asked, authorities would simply take it back if they become aware of that situation.

Senator Moore: We hear of that sort of thing happening when there is some kind of a contentious case and authorities take someone's passport so they cannot leave the country.

Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, conceptually, it would be tidier if they said, if someone does not return it, it will not be valid anymore; they can take it back, but it is also not valid. Whether they need to do that is up to them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Does counsel recommend we communicate that information to the department and that they should change the regulations?

Mr. Bernhardt: They have been notified of that situation and they have taken the position that it is something they will look at when changing the order the next time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Counsel recommends this file be closed. Senator Harb agrees that this file be closed. Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-536 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONSULAR SERVICES FEES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 8G:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Section 4 of these regulations provides for a non-refundable fee payable at the time an application for a travel document is made. The relevant enabling authority in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, however, authorizes the prescribing of fees for documents issued by the minister.

Therefore, section 4 is clearly ultra vires because it permits the collection of a fee even if no document is ever issued.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had indicated that consideration was to be given to amending the act retroactively to permit an application fee. However, this amendment now seems to be caught up with other possible amendments, matters have been delayed and there is no forecast time frame anymore.

This being the case, I suggest that, perhaps, the department be advised that section 4 should be revoked without further delay. The committee can also consider requesting an assurance that this unlawful fee will not be collected in the interim, if only as a spur to some other action, perhaps, by the department.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/88-58 — AIR TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 8H:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): We are moving to the ``Progress'' heading, SOR/88-58.

Mr. Rousseau: Originally, the committee raised 82 points about this item. Most of the promised corrections have been done. In its letter of November 1, 2007, the agency stated that it was waiting for drafting to be completed in January 2008 and for the proposed amendments to be published thereafter. We have not yet been advised that the material has been published, and, after checking, we do not think that it has. Since the letter from the agency was dated last November 1, it would be appropriate for counsel to write to enquire about progress made since that date.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Is that recommendation satisfactory?

Senator Moore: Should we ask for a reply within 30 days? How long do we let this item drift along? We should mention some kind of a time frame.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: If we consider that we started out with 82 points, we are seeing consistent progress on this item. It might appear at first sight that we should consider setting a deadline of 30 days for an answer. But as I just mentioned, over the years, we have seen consistent progress on the 82 original points. It does not seem to me to be necessary.

[English]

Senator Moore: Are you happy with the rate of response in this file?

Mr. Rousseau: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Perhaps the letter can say that we expect response in a timely manner. Are all agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/98-443 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW PANEL SERVICE CHARGES ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 8I:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: This item deals with charges for some services that the committee considers illegal. In letters of July 9, 2007 and January 21, 2008, the agency describes the progress of initiatives intended to replace these charges. In the second letter, the agency told us that its consultation document was complete and undertook to send us a copy. We have not yet received the document and it does not seem to be available yet on the agency's web site. Our recommendation is to write to the agency to ask where matters now stand, and, if its document has begun to be distributed publicly, to ask when it feels that the promised changed can be made.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): You notice also that they thank us for our ongoing patience. That is well known. Thank you.

Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2002-437 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 8J:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: This item deals with a discretionary power that the agency recognizes has no use and that it has committed to discontinue. In its letter of January 29, 2008, the agency indicates that the promised amendment is part of a miscellaneous amendment regulatory package that will be submitted to the Department of Justice for legal review in May 2008. If the committee is satisfied, counsel will continue to monitor progress in the usual way and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

Senator Harb: I note how incredibly efficient the department was in dealing with this issue. A letter was sent out on January 21, 2008. A response came back on January 29, 2008. That is good.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is because they had good news.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): That is, of course, in great contrast to some of those 20-year files we see in this committee.

[Translation]

SOR/2005-38 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA PENSION PLAN REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 8K:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: This item deals with two changes to the drafting of the regulations. The department was waiting for certain amendments to the act to be brought forward before proposing amendments to the regulations, including those that the committee has been promised. The act has now been amended and the department states, in a letter of November 8, 2007, that the amendments to the regulations should be in effect in the summer or the fall of 2008. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will monitor progress in the usual way on this item too, and keep the committee informed of developments.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are there any comments or questions? Everyone is nodding so everyone agrees, even those half asleep.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2002-423 — REGULATIONS ADAPTING THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT IN RESPECT OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 8L:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: In this item, seven points were raised. Changes were promised in response to points 1 to 4 and to the two last paragraphs of point 7. In counsels' opinion, satisfactory answers have been provided on points 5 and 6 and on the final paragraph of point 7.

In counsels' opinion, the answer on the first paragraph of point 7 was not satisfactory. As the title indicates, these regulations deal with employment equity concerns at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In the course of their duties, compliance officers obtain documents that may contain national security information. Section 34.1 of the regulations specifies by when officers must surrender to the service all documents containing such information. Counsel stressed that officers could be conducting several compliance audits in any given period and that the intention was clearly to require officers to surrender only those documents respecting particular compliance audits rather than all documents, as the regulations currently stipulate.

Counsel suggested that this be specified in the regulations. It is unclear whether the department understood counsels' comments. The department replied that section 34.1 applies only to documents used in the context of the Employment Equity Act. Clearly, all documents in the possession of a compliance officer are documents used in the context of that act. That was not the issue. Rather, counsels' proposal was that it would be appropriate for the regulations to specify that only those documents respecting a particular compliance audit must be surrendered when an officer has finished with them.

Counsel are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to write to the department again.

Mr. Epp: Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[English]

SOR/2004-155 — SCHEDULE 1 CHEMICALS REGULATIONS (CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION)

(For text of document, see Appendix M, p. 8M:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Members have a detailed note before them on each of the 20 points raised in counsel's letter of September 11, 2007, to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, that includes an analysis of the department's reply. Amendments have been promised to address points 2, 19 and 20, as well as the minor grammatical error noted at the end of point 15. It is suggested that the reply, in respect of points 5 and 7, be accepted as satisfactory.

On point 9, it was suggested that the factors taken into account in deciding whether the required supervision by licensees and persons responsible for small-scale facilities is adequate should be set out in the regulations. The department replied that these considerations vary greatly depending on the particular circumstances. This may be but, in deciding whether this approach is the best one that can be achieved, it might be useful to have examples from the department, at least of the sorts of criteria on which it relies. Perhaps that question can be asked.

On the remaining 14 points, the response is considered unsatisfactory. In each case, the reasons for this conclusion are set out in the note that has been prepared and that could serve as the basis for a further letter to DFAIT. Most of these points involve either drafting matters or the need for clarification. Point 17 concerns a more substantive matter: the desirability of providing a right of review where there is a refusal to grant a licence or there is a suspension or cancellation of the licence.

To spare members, I do not propose going through each of the 14 outstanding points one by one but I suggest a further letter to pursue each of them. Counsel will be pleased to answer any questions and to provide further explanation in connection with any item.

Mr. Szabo: From time to time we receive substantal documentation. This file has all the earmarks of taking an awfully long time. Can counsel advise the committee on whether there is a time at which a meeting must be held, rather than simply continue with written negotiations back and forth, given that 14 points must be addressed? Some of these points will take further clarification by the department as to intent or other remedial action. In the past, the committee has recommended to a department that it stop charging the fee or imposing the regulation until it makes appropriate corrections.

To deal with this file, I would begin by sitting down to hack through the corrections required. Otherwise, this problem could be a serious one for a long time.

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Szabo makes a valid point. In part, it depends on the file's history and length of time and in part on the particular issues. In this case, we are dealing with a need for clarification and with inconsistencies between the two versions. This is the first time that the file has been to committee and to date, we have one exchange of correspondence. In an ideal world, a further letter explaining the position more fully and why the department's first response missed the mark on a number of these issues would elicit greater success.

At that point, we may still have some outstanding issues and, having narrowed those down, I think face-to-face discussion might be useful.

I am loath to suggest witnesses appearing before the committee to discuss matters of drafting and terminology but there are cases where a meeting between the various staff involved can be of value to resolution of a file. However, I suggest writing another letter first.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Counsel, it seems as though they are making some excuse instead of committing to action. Is that your general impression?

Mr. Bernhardt: I am trying to find a way to characterize it globally. When 14 responses are classified as unsatisfactory, there can be a variety of reasons. In some cases, it is a matter of missing the point. In other cases, when we point out that something is not clear and can be expressed better, we can run into pride of authorship where there is stubbornness on the other side because of the time and effort invested to create the draft. There is hesitancy on their part to admit that they never thought of that. In those cases, it takes a little pushing.

At times, there is a different understanding of the provision.

Ms. Barnes: In the letter to the minister, I suggest saying: ``The committee considered having you attend before us and would like to give you this opportunity to reply rapidly, but we will have you back before us if you do not get back.''

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are members agreed?

Mr. Wappel: Perhaps I misunderstood Mr. Szabo. I thought he suggested a meeting between our counsel and their department to narrow things down. I have no problem with Ms. Barnes' suggestion but it raises another issue. Mr. Rousseau said, in response to Senator Moore, that one file contained 82-plus points and, slowly but surely, with the exchange of correspondence, it has been whittled down. Mr. Bernhardt said the same thing in respect of this file. However, it is not unheard of for counsel to sit down informally with the department on a difficult file. Such discussions do not involve the committee but can resolve the logjams that occur on such large files. That possibility should always be considered. Counsel does not necessarily need the authority of the committee to pick up the phone and request an informal meeting. On occasion, it is a good way to find a resolution. Given some of the sensitivities, we do not want these things in writing. People can say things in a private meeting or agree to things without seeming to lose face.

Mr. Bernhardt: Telephone conversations go back and forth regularly with our caveat at the conclusion: Thank you very much; now put it in writing so we can take it to the committee. Sometimes, from the bureaucratic perspective, the telephone call removes the purpose of the meeting but that is the position we always take. We are perfectly willing at any time to enter into informal discussions or give explanations provided, at the end of the day, we receive something in writing that we can take to the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): We have the suggestion that a letter be written and that we communicate to them again our willingness to have them in front of the committee if they do not respond promptly. That was the intent. Are all agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2006-256 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 8N:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: As the material prepared for the committee shows, passing this amendment to the regulations allowed four problems pointed out by the committee to be corrected. However, three new concerns were raised in the correspondence on the amendment itself. On the first two points, corrections have been promised.

On the third point, counsel noted that subsection 122.1 of the regulations requires that every buoyant apparatus on board a ship must bear a label of the United States Coast Guard indicating that the apparatus is in conformity with the requirements set out in the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States.

Subsection 122.2 of the regulations stipulates that every marking on a buoyant apparatus be in English and French. Counsel enquired whether the United States Coast Guard labels complied with this requirement, and, if not, whether ship owners and operators must produce or acquire bilingual labels. The department replied that the labels in question are not bilingual and that no such requirement is made. This being the case, the regulation should be amended to specify that the bilingualism requirement does not apply to United States Coast Guard labels.

Counsel asked the department to indicate which markings would be subject to the bilingualism requirement. The department replied that it applied to safety instructions, such as how to properly deploy and use the buoyant apparatus, and that ship owners and operators must provide those markings. If the committee is in agreement, counsel recommend that they write back to the department suggesting that United States Coast Guard labels be excluded and to ask if it can indicate when the necessary corrections will be made.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): The recommendation is that a letter be written back to them. Are all agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): The next item is under the agenda heading, ``Action Promised(?).''

[Translation]

SOR/2006-271 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 8O:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, as indicated in the material prepared for the committee, passing SOR/2006-271 allowed a total of 22 corrections to the regulations as a result of comments made by the committee. One of these comments dealt with the conditions on individuals wanting to take advantage of an exemption provided in the regulations. The committee felt that those conditions were illegal.

The correspondence on SOR/2006-271 relates to drafting issues. The department states that it has forwarded committee counsels' remarks in their letter of May 30, 2007 to the Department of Justice. In reply to a request to clarify whether the department considers that each provision on which counsel had commented needs to be corrected, the department wrote a letter on October 11, 2007 saying, and I quote:

We have no reason to feel that your comments will not be included in Amendment 10.

However, it is our position that it is not appropriate for the department to be providing this confirmation at this time. On the one hand, the department seems to agree with committee counsel on the changes needed. On the other hand, it seems to be leaving it to the Department of Justice to decide on the changes. So we cannot be sure what the department's decision will be. However, in preparation for today's meeting, counsel noted that proposed regulations, in very detailed form, were published in the Canada Gazette of March 29, 2008. If this proposal were passed, only one of the problems we pointed out would be corrected. Are we to conclude that the proposed changes are something different from the document that the department describes as Amendment 10 in the correspondence? Clearly, it is appropriate to ask the department.

Counsel therefore recommend writing to the department again in order to ascertain its real intentions and to obtain a clear commitment on the amendments to be made to the regulations.

[English]

Mr. Wappel: On the previous file, we talked about the reluctance to put something in writing. I love this last sentence in this letter of October 11. I want to quote it because I think it is wonderfully written for obtuseness:

We have no reason to feel that your comments will not be included in Amendment 10. But Natural Resources Canada does not feel that it would be appropriate to confirm this at this time.

That is exactly what you are saying. Yes, we agree with you but we do not want to confirm we agree with you. They have put that in writing. It is fascinating.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): We will follow the recommendation of counsel then. Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr.Epp): We now go to the agenda item, ``Reply Satisfactory(?).''

You have a few of these items. Do you want to deal with them in a group?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think these three items are probably best done one at a time.

SOR/2000-100 — FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS REGULATIONS, 1999

(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 8P:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: A number of amendments dealing with points of drafting were promised by the Department of Finance. Subsequently, the committee was told that the portions of the regulations in question had ceased to have effect in that they had been superseded by legislation enacted by Parliament.

However, the department's latest letter advises that the regulations will be replaced with new regulations, and the new regulations will reflect the points raised, where applicable. This information seems at odds with the earlier advice that the regulations had already been replaced by statutory provisions.

Perhaps the department can be asked to explain this apparent contradiction and advise as to exactly what they see the current status of the regulations as being.

Be that as it may, the proposal for the new regulations was to go before Treasury Board last December. One way or another, a resolution seems to be coming slowly into sight. At the same time, I suppose we could also ask for a progress report on these new regulations.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2002-307 — MARINE LIABILITY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 8Q:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, the problem in the correspondence deals with the application of the regulations to partnerships or any public or private body, whether corporate or not. The committee pointed out that the act does not provide for legal penalties for partnerships or bodies that have no legal personality. It is therefore clear that this could pose a problem, at very least if the time came to seek legal remedies from partnerships or bodies without legal personality. As such, the committee suggested amending either the regulations or the act.

In its letter of October 15, 2007, the department brings two possible approaches to the committee's attention. First, according to the department, because of the large quantities of oil in question, it is primarily large companies with legal personality that would be subject to the obligations in the regulations. The department tells us that there has never been a situation of the kind that the committee envisaged.

Secondly, the department writes that if, despite the above, the committee is of the opinion that the situation must be addressed, the corrections could be done by amending the regulations. Amendments are suggested in the letter that would indeed correct the problem.

Counsel recommend that the committee accept the proposal to amend the regulations. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write to the department to ask that it add these amendments to the ones it has already promised on another point that the committee raised.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are there any comments? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2005-149 — EXPORT AND IMPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS RECYCLABLE MATERIAL REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 8R:1.)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, all the promised amendments in this item deal with the drafting of the regulations. The committee wanted to know if the department would agree to make the amendments separately, if the regulatory review, scheduled for 2010, should be delayed.

The department agreed to look at this possibility if the need arises. The department reaffirms that it feels that it will still be able to have the regulatory review done by 2010. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will monitor progress in the usual way and keep the committee informed.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): I thank the interpreter for being complete and thank you for your patience while I listened to it. Are there any comments? Do you accept that recommendation?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): That is agreed. We move now to the agenda item, ``Action Promised.'' There are three items in this group; two were misplaced under ``Action Taken.''

Mr. Bernhardt: Chair, at this point I propose to follow the usual practice and deal with these three headings as three separate groups: ``Action Promised,'' ``Action Taken'' and ``Statutory Instruments Without Comment.''

SOR/2003-175 — CANADIAN PAYMENTS ASSOCIATION BY-LAW NO. 2 — FINANCE

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 8S:1.)

SOR/2003-363 — ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 8T:1.)

SOR/2004-215 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 8U:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: As you point out, the first two items under ``Action Taken'' are, in fact, ``Action Promised.'' That being the case, there are three files in respect to which action is promised and they reflect a total of six amendments. Progress on these items will be followed up as per usual.

SOR/2007-225 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1574 — CORRECTIVE AMENDMENTS, MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 8V:1.)

SOR/2007-230 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SURFACE COATING MATERIALS REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix W, p. 8W:1.)

SOR/2007-278 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION (RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix X, p. 8X:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under ``Action Taken,'' we are left with three instruments that make four corrections previously promised to the committee.

SI/2007-81 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO THE TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS OFFICE

SI/2007-82 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE VERNER

SI/2007-83 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE GERRY RITZ

SI/2007-84 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE DIANE ABLONCZY TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY

SI/2007-85 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT TO THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ECOAUTO REBATE PROGRAM

SI/2007-88 — PROCLAMATION PROROGUING PARLIAMENT TO OCTOBER 16, 2007

SI/2007-89 — PROCLAMATION SUMMONING PARLIAMENT TO MEET OCTOBER 16, 2007

SI/2007-94 — PROCLAMATION SUMMONING PARLIAMENT TO MEET ON OCTOBER 16, 2007 (DISPATCH OF BUSINESS)

SI/2007-96 — ORDER REFERRING BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2007-246 TO AMEND THE BROADCASTING LICENCE OF AVIS DE RECHERCHE INC.

SI/2007-97 — ORDER DECLINING TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2007-246 TO ISSUE A BROADCASTING LICENCE TO THE NATIONAL BROADCASTING READING SERVICE INC.

SI/2007-98 — CERTAIN SCHOOL AUTHORITIES (GST/HST) REMISSION ORDER

SI/2007-100 — ORDER AMENDING THE LABRADOR INNU SETTLEMENTS REMISSION ORDER, 2003

SI/2007-104 — TEMPORARY RESIDENT VISA FEE (49TH INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS) REMISSION ORDER

SI/2007-107 — YVONNE TOWNSHEND REMISSION ORDER

SI/2007-111 — REMISSION ORDER CONCERNING THE FEES FOR EMERGENCY PASSPORTS ISSUED DURING THE SUMMER 2006 EVACUATION OF CANADIANS FROM LEBANON

SI/2007-112 — QUEBEC PARENTAL INSURANCE PLAN (2007) REMISSION ORDER

SI/2007-114 — ORDER TRANSFERRING TO THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY FROM THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT THE POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT, TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE FEDERAL PROJECT COORDINATION SECRETARIAT AND THE PIPELINE READINESS OFFICE AND TRANSFERRING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE CROWN CONSULTATION UNIT

SI/2007-115 — ORDER GIVING NOTICE OF DECISIONS NOT TO ADD CERTAIN SPECIES TO THE LIST OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

SOR/2006-132 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1985

SOR/2006-139 — ORDER RESCINDING DECISION NO. 618-W-2005 OF THE CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

SOR/2006-143 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1370 — NICOTINE LOZENGE)

SOR/2006-151 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-153 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMPORTED GOODS RECORDS REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-169 — ORDER 2006-87-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2006-202 — ORDER 2006-87-06-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2006-267 — ORDER 2006-87-08-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2006-288 — ORDER VARYING TELECOM DECISION CRTC 2005-28

SOR/2006-289 — ORDER 2006-66-05-04 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2006-290 — ORDER 2006-87-07-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2006-326 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS, 1996

SOR/2006-351 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONTRAVENTIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-355 —ORDER ISSUING A DIRECTION TO THE CRTC ON IMPLEMENTING THE CANADIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY OBJECTIVES

SOR/2007-1 —ORDER 2006-87-09-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2007-10 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ORGANIC PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-27 — ORDER 2006-66-12-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2007-28 — ORDER 2006-87-12-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2007-42 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1496 AND 1510 — SCHEDULE F)

Mr. Bernhardt: Turning to Statutory Instruments Without Comment, I note for the record here that, this morning, 37 instruments have been reviewed and found to comply with all the committee's criteria.

I also have a final note for the record. At the last meeting, a question was raised concerning SOR/2000-217, Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances Regulations (1091). The department had indicated they hoped to have amendments pre-published by January. The committee's decision was to ask for a progress report but there was also a question at that point as to whether that prepublication had taken place. We checked and can confirm that it has not. That situation will be included in the follow-up letter.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Are all those actions satisfactory to the committee?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Epp): Does that conclude our list? Is there any other business?

In conclusion, I give special thanks to counsel for their good, efficient work and to all the members of the committee for so efficiently expediting the business of the committee today. I thank the reporters and our clerks. I thank the interpreters, without whom I would be totally incapable of functioning and, of course, our capable switcher who did a great job today. Thank you all.

The committee adjourned.

---