---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 5 - Evidence, April 23, 2009

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, April 23, 2009

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:35 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Mr. Andrew Kania (Joint Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chair, I would like to raise a point of order. A document that is written in English only has been distributed to us this morning. I would like any reference to or discussion of this document to be postponed to the next session when we have received a French translation.

In future, I would also like all documents tabled at meetings of the joint committee to be in both official languages, English and French.

For this morning, I will agree to it being tabled. But I do not want it discussed while we have no French translation.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I agree with you, Mr. Asselin. The matter was to be my initial comment this morning. The letter dated April 21, which I had just received, was delivered to my office without translation. A copy was distributed to all members with the proviso that everyone agree, at a minimum, to not move the secretariat until Parliament is not in session. We have matters to discuss in respect of both letters. I asked Mr. Bernhardt to have the letter translated, tabled and put as the first item on next Thursday's meeting agenda. In that way, everyone will have an opportunity to read the English version and/or the French version. We will hold the discussion at the next meeting.

Mr. Galipeau: Who authorized the distribution of the letter this morning?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I did.

Mr. Galipeau: Mr. Chair, I would ask that this never happen again. A letter that is not in both official languages should not be distributed at the meeting ever again. Such a point of order should never have to be raised again.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I distributed it because I wanted people to have an update. My intent was to provide an oral update based on these letters. Once again, I had already provided instructions to Mr. Bernhardt to have the letter translated and to have it added as the first item on the agenda for the next meeting, when we would discuss it.

Mr. Galipeau: This is a committee of the Parliament of Canada.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Szabo: Let us move on.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Agreed.

SOR/95-255 —NATIONAL HISTORIC PARKS GENERAL REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/2005-206 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL PARKS OF CANADA FISHING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 5A:1)

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: Mr. Chair, as the note prepared for this meeting explains, the Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations Program was instituted following a suggestion made by this committee. Under the program, amendments to various regulations administered by a particular department or agency are processed together in a single order. The idea is to streamline the process and to reduce costs.

As a matter of government policy, certain types of instruments have always been eligible to be included in the Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations Program. These are routine corrections, clarifications or other non- substantive amendments. In addition, however, amendments to implement changes requested by the committee were also eligible for inclusion, regardless of whether they were substantive.

In the course of following up on promised amendments in connection with these two instruments, we were told that amendments had been removed from a proposed miscellaneous amendments regulation at the insistence of Treasury Board. Apparently, there is a new policy pursuant to which miscellaneous amendments regulations can contain only amendments that effect routine corrections, regardless of whether they have been agreed to between the committee and the regulation-making authority.

Aside from the fact that the committee was never consulted on or advised of this change by Treasury Board, the new policy obviously removes a tool that has been useful in making amendments to regulations once they have been agreed to between the committee and the regulation-making authority. It is suggested that perhaps the President of the Treasury Board could be asked to explain the reasons for this change in policy. Unless some significant rationale can be advanced, the committee might request that it remain the case that amendments to implement changes agreed to between the committee and the regulation maker can be included in a miscellaneous amendments regulation, regardless of whether they are substantive.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chair, counsel is far too polite on this one. First, this appears to be a purported unilateral change in the understanding between this committee and the Treasury Board, and the executive of government, in relation to the miscellaneous amendments procedures. It is unilateral. It is quite bizarre that the change they say is in process, and which they are enforcing, was by their own words not even formally adopted yet.

This is crazy. I am absolutely certain that the minister has no idea about this. This is bureaucratic, Treasury Board gobbledygook, and I think we should try and nip it in the bud.

I will suggest we correspond back. We can copy the minister, but the minister is far too busy to have to waste time on this kind of nonsense. I am very aggressive on this issue. We want to note that the change they say they will make is unilateral without consultation with the committee, which was, and has been, an integral partner in this process.

Second, even if the purported change were adopted on the face of its own wording, it would still accept and admit non-routine amendments. In our view, their interpretation of their own wording is not even accurate.

I think that we should pick the most egregious of the two regulations impugned here, give notice of disallowance and start the 30 days now. Then we will call the highest-ranking Treasury Board Secretariat official responsible for this policy and get him or her to justify their unilateral action. If the outcome of that hearing puts the matter to rest, we do not have to proceed with disallowance.

They must understand our perspective on this matter. The position they have taken now is nonsense — at least, I believe it is nonsense. We should give them an opportunity to outline it here.

My proposal is that we ensure that the correspondence back to them is clear and we copy the minister. We then give notice, but we can wait one meeting. We let counsel pick the most egregious of the two amendments, give the 30-day notice of disallowance, and then we call the Treasury Board official.

Mr. Dreeshen: I would submit that we do not go through that disallowance process right now. We should get back to them as quickly as possible. We are at the beginning of this process. We should let Regulatory Affairs at Treasury Board get back to us with a clarification. If we have to then follow the further steps suggested, perhaps that is something for later.

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

Mr. Szabo: The issue that concerns me the most is the apparent misunderstanding of the role of this committee and the nature of its work. It left me with a feeling that we are not sufficiently appreciated.

Mr. Lee has decided that we can deal with this matter from the perspective of the committee, as well as to fundamentally have a change in the wording. I do not know how the question came up about whether anything we do is not substantive.

However, we need a little help, and I agree that we need to take the necessary steps to nail this down and do so quickly. It will not take a long time. I suspect that it will be dealt with by the time we get to our next meeting. However, you have to trigger it.

What we do not need is a bunch of correspondence going back and forth. Given that counsel is representing our interests to anyone at Treasury Board who wants to discuss the matter further, plus the fact we would like to have it resolved by the next meeting, this is probably a prudent step to take for a committee that needs to get on with its work.

Mr. Saxton: I agree that we need to take immediate action on this item, but I do not think a disallowance is necessary at this time. In a letter, I suggest that we demand an explanation from Regulatory Affairs but that we do not request a disallowance.

Mr. Lee: I hear the gathering consensus of members to avoid disallowance, but my experience is that if we do not clearly start a clock running on this matter, it will not be dealt with until the next Parliament. This will run on for months and years.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Having been on this committee for six or seven years, I tend to agree with Mr. Lee: It is just a trigger. It will probably not happen, but at least there will be some action. I do not think we will go that far. However, if we do not take that measure as a "stop," this will continue. We are in a minority position in Parliament and we never know when things will change.

We cannot go along with a regulation that is not appropriate and denies rights to the citizens of Canada. We must be very serious about this. It is not a matter of disagreeing or not liking the administration. It is a matter of fairness and justice to Canadian citizens. That is how I see it, and it is our duty to ensure that this will be changed.

This issue has lasted for too long. There was a long break before Christmas and this committee did not sit. The delays are overwhelming at this point in time.

Mr. Lee has recommended a step-by-step process. If Treasury Board officials agree to have a dialogue with us and come and explain the situation, that is the only way to get it done. Otherwise, they will continue with the same kind of ignorance — sometimes I think it is close to contempt — for what we are doing.

Mr. Dreeshen: Have we ever written to Treasury Board on this particular issue?

Mr. Bernhardt: This is the first time. We were first made aware of this in connection with this Parks Canada file. They told us that they would put the amendments the committee wants in a miscellaneous order. Then, in the course of following it up, we were eventually told, "We are sorry, but we had to take it out of the miscellaneous amendments order because Treasury Board made us do it."

Mr. Dreeshen: We are at the stage that some people are feeling that a great deal of disrespect is being shown. I cannot see that at this particular point in time. That is why I cannot agree with taking this item to disallowance at this point.

Mr. Bernhardt: One point that comes to mind as a concern is that there is a possibility that involving a multitude of agencies and departments might muddy the waters and even slow things down. The disallowance would go to the Minister of the Environment. The regulations are actually administered by Parks Canada, so there would have to be communication there. On top of that, the committee's real problem is with Treasury Board. We have involved three departments and agencies.

Mr. Dreeshen: You are suggesting that the process of disallowance may not make an answer flow as quickly as we might like.

Mr. Bernhardt: I simply wonder if it might detract from the real issue, which is this new Treasury Board policy.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): What is your recommendation?

Mr. Bernhardt: One suggestion was made to write to Regulatory Affairs at Treasury Board to convey the committee's disappointment and concern and ask for their reasons. We can certainly do that.

Mr. Dreeshen: That is the action I would like to see, with a deadline included.

Mr. Lee: Is the sense among members that we should just correspond?

Mr. Saxton: We should do so firmly, with a deadline.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Should we correspond, with a copy to the minister?

Mr. Lee: I am in favour of something more aggressive, as committee members can tell. This purported unilateral change goes to the core of our parliamentary functions. I would have an official from Treasury Board here very quickly as a witness to explain it.

What they are doing, in the back door and back rooms, is impairing the routine work that we and the departments do together, which is unacceptable at a minimum. I would have called someone from Treasury Board forthwith. I would have read the riot act from the parliamentary point of view and then reached a resolution — either we have a problem or we do not.

I am not reluctant to put our view in correspondence, but if we do not deal with this issue quickly, it will drag on. This may not be a long Parliament.

Mr. Dreeshen: My point is that we could be writing those things in that letter to get the process going.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: I share the idea of disallowance. We could mention it in the initial letter to Treasury Board. At the same time, we could call their representatives to come and provide us with an explanation. To make the approach sound a little more serious, I would indicate in the letter that committee members had a long discussion about the possibility of issuing a disallowance as a next step if the response is unsatisfactory or delayed.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: The committee should always work as collegially as possible. The centre route seems to be not to jump to disallowance. I suggest that we call the Treasury Board officials responsible to appear before us at our next meeting. That is not for a couple of weeks, but that is enough time.

In the meantime, counsel can vet any of the dialogue or arguments that have been made so that when they come here, there will be an undertaking to make the necessary changes to resolve the concerns of the committee.

Mr. Lee: I am okay with that.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: I agree with Mr. Szabo and my colleague from the Bloc. Pointing out seriousness of the situation by bringing up disallowance as a possibility implies that we do not wish to delay matters either, nor prevent them from moving forward.

We should be forceful and tell them how shocked we were by their attitude. Then, there would be no question of delaying our suggestion for disallowance if we do not get their cooperation.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I think we have a consensus. We shall write a letter, copy the minister, make a note that we have considered disallowance and ask for a representative of the Treasury Board to be present at the next meeting.

Mr. Dreeshen: I would not agree with the last part. I still believe that we have to give the notice and give them an opportunity to hear what we have said. Up until that point, I would agree.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): In a show of hands, who thinks we should call a representative from the Treasury Board for the next meeting? That is approximately half. Who is opposed to that proposal specifically? Five.

In those circumstances, although it is not a vote, the majority is to call a representative of the Treasury Board. Let us ask them do that. If we can try to defuse the situation, perhaps it will not be necessary, but let us schedule it.

SOR/2004-180 — ORDER AMENDING THE ONTARIO HOG CHARGES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT) ORDER

SOR/2004-256 — ORDER AMENDING THE ONTARIO HOG CHARGES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT) ORDER

SOR/2004-303 — ORDER AMENDING THE ONTARIO HOG CHARGES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT) ORDER

SOR/2005-13 — ORDER AMENDING THE ONTARIO HOG CHARGES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 5B:1 )

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, none of these instruments were registered within the time required under the Statutory Instruments Act. Because they did not come into force until they were registered, during the period between making and registration, if there was any increase in the charges under the instruments, that increased charge would have been collected illegally.

The fees imposed by the last three instruments have been refunded. This was because they had been imposed as a special fee to fund a challenge to U.S. dumping duties. The United States decided to give the dumping duties back, so the money for the legal challenge was returned to producers.

That left only SOR/2004-180. It was not affected by the refunds that were made. As a result of the problems with that particular order, there was a period from May 21, 2004, to August 12, 2004, when any increased money would have been collected without proper authority.

The committee wanted to know how much money was involved. This request turned into a renewed legal debate between committee counsel and counsel for the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board as to whether the instruments had to be registered in the first place.

The committee's view in this regard has now been accepted. The February 11 letter from the board's counsel includes a list of the amounts overcharged. The total is just under $5,000, and the most a single producer was overcharged was I believe $185. Most of the overcharges were for much smaller amounts.

The board suggests that it would, in most cases, cost more to reimburse the amounts than the amounts actually owed. It asks the committee how it would like them to proceed.

Clearly, the board's hope is the committee will be satisfied simply with an assurance that steps have been taken to guarantee that the situation will not arise again and that the committee will take the view that no refunds need be made.

Mr. Young: I am looking at the chart at the back of the section. In the third column from the right, which says "difference of greater than zero," one organization looks like it overpaid $920. Another one looks like they paid $556. Am I looking at the right column?

Mr. Bernhardt: You are absolutely correct.

Mr. Young: That is significant money. Do these producers know they have overpaid?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is always an interesting question. I doubt that they do.

Mr. Young: They are just saying, "We agree that you are right; you won your legal battle. We should pay back what was collected illegally — in error, but illegally — so tell us what to do." Is that right?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is basically it. That is the letter we have from the board.

Mr. Young: Let me ask you for your opinion. Let us assume that they sent a letter to these organizations saying, "You overpaid because of a technicality, and if you want to pursue the matter further, please call us." Presumably these organizations received value for the money even though the thing was not registered.

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose that is one possible way they could proceed. Then if a producer found out that they were owed 80 cents, they would have the option of not bothering. On the other hand, if it is several hundred dollars, they could have a different view.

Mr. Young: There is one for $188, one for over $500, one for $920 and a couple around $100. I would imagine they would want their money back, but producers would not worry about the ones for $1.60 and $2.40.

Mr. Hoback: Would it be possible to base the process on a dollar figure? Anything under or over $10 would be addressed differently so that some common sense would be applied. If the amount was 80 cents, you would not receive a letter, but if it was a higher dollar figure, you would. Could we make that recommendation?

Mr. Bernhardt: Strictly from the committee's point of view, there might be some hesitation to do that because of the principle that it is all illegal. In a sense, the committee would be countenancing small illegalities.

Given Mr. Young's suggestion, it might be easier for the committee to say, "Contact all these people by letter and give them the choice." Then each producer can decide for themselves. I realize there is more cost to the board, but we are not talking about thousands of letters.

Mr. Young: I have that concern too. How much trouble is it to send a letter? It does not cost that much to send a letter.

Mr. Szabo: One hundred dollars.

Mr. Young: That is a long letter.

Mr. Szabo: It is $100 in terms of a person's time. It is more than the cost of a stamp.

Mr. Young: Does this committee have any precedent for a situation such as this?

Mr. Bernhardt: These issues are encountered from time to time. The committee has usually taken a fairly strong view that when someone collects money from citizens unlawfully, they should pay it back.

Mr. Young: If I were owed, I would like to receive a letter indicating the amount. That would be my suggestion.

Mr. Lee: This is a bread and butter issue for the committee. We always have taken a hard line on improperly collected fees. We do insist on reimbursement, given that we are looking after our taxpayers.

I am on the same channel as Mr. Young. First, I point out the fabulous letter that our chief counsel wrote on this file, which was a slam dunk. I wanted to acknowledge the quality of the letter.

Second, when the board reported its accounting figures, it inserted a category of undercharging. Of course, it is not illegal to undercharge anyone; their undercharging is their own administrative process. Our problem is not with undercharging but with overcharging. We are not so much concerned with the net figure as we are concerned with improperly levied overcharging.

I suggest that we send them a letter that explains what has occurred, not in terms of fault or blameworthiness, and ask them to contact all of the payers. We could obtain from them an undertaking that they will reimburse any of the payers who make that request. It will include those who were overcharged by 50 cents as equally as those who were overcharged by $1,000. When you look at the list, you will see that a few hundred dollars are waiting for a number of these producers. That will allow the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board to undertake to reimburse producers through appropriate mailings. It would be a standard letter, not the $100 letter that Mr. Szabo talked about. Everyone could then understand what occurred. They can use our letter if they wish to do so as a backgrounder on what happened. I would accept the undertaking of the board to reimburse if that is requested.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: Are these producers who have to pay charges each year, or do they just have to pay them from time to time? It might be simpler to issue them a credit on their next bill. We are not going to ask anyone to send a payment for 40 cents. They can be given a credit against the amount they owe in a future transaction. It might be one, two or three dollars.

If the amount got up to $900, the person would most likely want to get it right away, especially in this economic crisis. But, for three dollars, they would not expect immediate reimbursement from the government; a credit would be fine.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: In most cases, given that they have undercharged and overcharged on their chart as an administrative matter, they might be able to make it work in that way. If they do a running total for a producer who is marketing hogs on a weekly or monthly basis, that might be a possibility.

Ms. Gagnon: It would be done regularly.

Mr. Young: That would work, but if the business has been sold, then the money would be owed to the producer/ owner.

Mr. Dreeshen: For a producer to receive such a letter from the government requesting that he investigate and call in to see how much money he can get back shows a lack of respect for his time and effort when the amount might be $3.20. We need to come up with a different solution.

I agree with the idea of issuing a credit. It is not sufficient to send out a letter to say simply that in the future we will deal with the overcharge in a certain manner. To suggest a letter and a phone call to find out whether it is worthwhile is a waste of their time. These are businessmen; they are not looking for an extra $3 to buy a cup of coffee.

Mr. Szabo: This is not the government; this is the marketing board.

Mr. Lee: This is Parliament.

Mr. Szabo: Yes, this is Parliament.

My concern is that it might be too complicated. For example, giving a credit requires much explanation. Under the circumstances, if each of these amounts were $10,000, how would we handle it? The letter could say, "It has been discovered that errors occurred in the charging of fees. These errors have been corrected and a cheque is enclosed in the amount of X. If you have questions or require further information, please contact us." In most of these cases, it would not risk anything more than admitting the mistake and reimbursing the money.

I would not attempt to be too clever. Governments make mistakes too. Giving a credit to account for an overcharge will cause someone to take the board to task over it. We could end up with correspondence on this file for years. It should be handled according to the procedures established for reimbursing an overcharge. I am quite certain that it would be straight forward to admit the error and say, "Your cheque is enclosed."

Mr. Young: That is called stimulus.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I have not counted the number exactly, but I would say there are fewer than 200.

Mr. Young: This is an issue of precedent as well. I agree that it does not matter whether the amount is 80 cents or $17. For example, I worked at Bell Canada in 1981. We were supposed to make a return on equity of no more than 12 per cent. We did such a good job that we made 13 per cent. The CRTC ordered us to pay back $2.40 to each subscriber. We had to set up a department and send out the cheques. It was a matter of integrity.

Mr. Lee: Members see the need for the construction of a mechanism for reimbursement or credit. Perhaps we could put the ball back in their court and advise that it is their obligation to design a mechanism for reimbursement or credit that will fit the producers. They should all be notified. That could be done in a letter to each affected producer, which would be about 200 letters. Administratively, it could be handled properly, provided the OPPMB knows that it is on the hook for reimbursement. I suggest that because we are not a court, the OPPMB can deal with it. Ms. Gagnon's suggestion about credit is very useful.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): What about a letter indicating that in the opinion of the committee the OPPMB has an obligation to compensate and make reimbursement in the form of a cheque or a credit?

Mr. Lee: I think we need to make reference to the credit.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): It will suggest credit or reimbursement.

Mr. Saxton: Yes, include both.

Mr. Masse: The only downside of the credit suggestion is that some of the amounts are substantial. What if those people do not use that cheque or credit? The concern is not the 80 cents, but there are a few who are owed a couple of hundred dollars or more. If they do not need the credit later on, they might actually want their money back. That is the problem. We would be back in a situation where someone might have to go back and fight for cash instead of credit.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I would like to know how much it would cost to issue 200 cheques and send them out.

Mr. Szabo: The cost would be less than we have spent talking about the file.

Mr. Young: You are right. It would be less than we are paid to direct these folks to write these letters. This is a computer printout. You will notice that each producer has a computerized number. It is not that big an issue.

Mr. Saxton: Why do we not suggest they have an option? The default option is they get a credit.

Mr. Szabo: That is a separate item, is it not?

Mr. Young: Deal with the one issue, namely that there is an overcharge. However, as a consequential issue, they should have established a policy on reimbursement for future purposes which may involve credit. Let them discuss it. We do not have to tell them how to do it.

Mr. Saxton: We are just helping them do their job.

Mr. Hoback: I recommend that we instruct them to zero-out the balance. How they go about doing that is up to them. Tell them we expect them to zero-out the balance. That leaves it fairly vague. If they want to use the credit system, they can. If they want to reimburse a cheque, they can.

All I know, as a farmer myself, is that if I got a letter in the mail saying I would be getting a big credit for 80 cents, I would be pissed off at the government for wasting my time.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: I would like to go back to the credit idea. Say I pay too much to Bell Canada because I paid the next bill early. The company issues me a credit. I am happy because most of the time I forgot I had it, and, in addition, the amount I have to pay on the next bill is reduced.

On the other hand, if someone who owes me money asks me to write a letter to justify being reimbursed, I feel like I have paid out more that I am getting back. You feel better about a credit that you know is money in the bank. That is how I see the credit idea.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): What if we sent a letter saying, "Provide a credit for any monies that are currently owed"? That would assume it would clear the debt. "Otherwise, provide a cheque."

Senator Bryden: I do not know whether we need to get into any complications as to how to get this done. They made an overcharge and they are responsible for that. In some instances, it is $920; in other instances it is $6.40. There are 200 cheques to be cut. Cut the cheque for whatever the amount is and make up for their mistake. It is pretty simple.

I have received many cheques for very small amounts of money. I think we are overly complicating the issue by giving various options. They have the responsibility; they made the mistake. They took money that they did not have the right to take, and they are required to reimburse those amounts. If some people indicate they would rather take a credit, that is fine, but we do not have to suggest that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We are sending a letter. We are all agreed. The letter will say, "You have overcharged and you must make it right."

Mr. Hoback: Good enough. It is done.

Mr. Szabo: "Fix it."

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We will leave it at that. Is it agreed?

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chair, honest to God, could we please make reference to the fact that there is more than one way to fix it?

Mr. Hoback: No.

Mr. Lee: They are looking for guidance. We found the problem. They are writing to us and asking what we want them to do. Let us give them guidance. Who could be opposed to a credit if they decided to use a credit?

Mr. Szabo: Someone who does not —

Mr. Lee: They can get a reimbursement. We are not telling them what to do, but the solution can involve reimbursement or credit. Let them decide how to do it.

Mr. Bernhardt: We could say "reimbursement, credit or other appropriate means."

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We could add, ". . . that remedies the situation in a timely manner." In this way the matter does not drag on and we ensure that it is closed. Are all agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/98-2 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/99-169 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-435 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 5C:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, at its March 26 meeting, the committee noted that although the Canadian Food Inspection Agency advised it was exploring opportunities to amend the Fish Inspection Act and that it would be making some unspecified amendments to the regulations, the agency still had not replied on the actual substance of the matters dealt with in counsel's May 1, 2007 letter.

Therefore, in the May 1 letter from the joint chairmen, the minister's cooperation was sought in ensuring that a detailed, substantive reply on each point was furnished without further delay and he was asked for an update on this exploration of opportunities to amend the act. The chairmen advised that the files would be brought back to the committee this morning and that the committee would like a reply by this time.

We have no reply to date. However, we were told yesterday that the reply is prepared; it is in the minister's office for signature. Apparently, he has been out of town and there has not been an opportunity to brief him on the matter. The minister's office has asked the committee to give him until the next meeting. If that is acceptable, the file will be put on the agenda for the next meeting.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 5D:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, a letter from the joint chairmen dated July 12, 2008, explained in detail the reasons for the committee's conclusion that the automatic fee increase mechanism put in place by these regulations was not authorized by the Pilotage Act because it did not fix the fee as the act requires. Members will recall that this is the identical issue to that arising in the Letter Mail Regulations in connection with which a notice of disallowance has been issued.

The February 12 reply from the Department of Transport advises that, in light of the committee's arguments, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority has agreed to revoke the provision in question and to replace it with fixed fees. This is a very different position than that taken on the same question by Canada Post. Hopefully, it bodes well for a satisfactory outcome on the Letter Mail Regulations, also.

Mr. Lee: Good luck.

I was taken aback by a reference in counsel's letter, the last two lines on page 4 of the English version, in which counsel quotes a provision of the act, stating:

. . . an Authority "shall be deemed to have fixed a pilotage charge if it prescribes a manner for determining a pilotage charge."

In this case, I can see that the pilotage authority did prescribe a manner for determining the charge. If the act deems that act of prescribing "a manner for determining" to be proper, then I do not understand the outcome in this file. We have reached a conclusion that what they have done is not in keeping with the statute. Can counsel explain the impact of that statutory provision?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: There are two provisions that allow the authority to charge fees. Only in one provision is there an assumption: that if the authority fixes the method of calculating the fees, it is the same as fixing the fees. The assumption applies only in one of the two provisions that permit fees to be charged. The regulation that the committee contested was made under the other provision. This provision has been used to say that, when Parliament wanted to authorize the method of calculation, it did so expressly. Elsewhere in the act, it has not done so. The conclusion must be that there was an obligation to fix the amount, in other words, not to use a variable formula like the one used in the regulations and to which the committee has objected.

[English]

Mr. Lee: Thank you for explaining that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there any other comments on this item?

Mr. Lee: No. That is a good outcome.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/96-423 — PATENT RULES

SOR/2003-208 — RULES AMENDING THE PATENT RULES

(For text of document, see Appendix E, p. 5E:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, the point at issue in the letters of December 12, 2007 and the reply of June 27, 2008 deal with the procedure for reinstating a patent application.

Though it may not appear so, the point is really quite simple. Under the Patent Act, an application for a patent is considered abandoned if the applicant fails to take one of the six actions referred to in subsection 73(1) of the act. However, the applicant can request a reinstatement of the patent by fulfilling the three conditions under subsection 73(3) of the act.

These conditions are listed at the beginning of the note prepared for the committee. In this subsection, Parliament has decreed that an application can be reinstated if the applicant makes a request for reinstatement to the commissioner within the prescribed period, takes the action that should have been taken in order to avoid the abandonment, and pays the prescribed fee before the expiration of the prescribed period.

The regulations require a request for reinstatement to be made for each of the measures the applicant failed to take under subsection 73(1) of the act. The committee questioned the validity of this regulatory requirement. To justify it, the department writes that an application is deemed to have been abandoned for each action the applicant failed to take under the act.

Accordingly, counsel is of the view that the conditions for reinstatement set out in subsection 73(3) must necessarily apply to each failed action deemed to have caused the application to be abandoned.

It is difficult to see how this can be the case since this regulatory requirement adds a condition to that which is set out in the act. The act requires the applicant to submit a request; he is free to do so for each of the failures if he feels the need. But it is not a statutory requirement.

It is clear that if the applicant: first, makes a request within the prescribed period; second, takes the action that should have been taken in order to avoid the abandonment; and, third, pays the prescribed fee before the expiration of the prescribed period, he has satisfied the conditions set out in subsection 73(3) of the act and is entitled to have his application reinstated.

If the committee is in agreement, committee counsel recommend writing back to the department to ask it to look at the matter once more.

[English]

Mr. Lee: Counsel has done a very good job on this file.

I want to note that I am used to Mr. Rousseau working in French and this memo does not appear to be a translation. If Mr. Rousseau is working in English, I want to say that the result is excellent. Sometimes when we work in this committee, the product suffers after the translation from French to English or English to French. In this case, Mr. Rousseau, the memo is very readable and it does not suffer from any translation. Have we changed our procedures?

Mr. Bernhardt: No, this is a translation.

Mr. Lee: Someone is doing a really good job.

Mr. Bernhardt: The translations are not done in our shop. In this case, whoever got the assignment was obviously very good.

Mr. Lee: Find out whoever it is; they are very good. In any case, Mr. Rousseau's work is always excellent.

I think Mr. Rousseau has managed to blow some juridical fresh air through this dusty old patent office. He has identified a problem that I take to be possibly an unusual or unexpected use of power. These people have managed to construct a new obstacle in a patent reinstatement application that the act, as Mr. Rousseau points out, does not call for.

I think that is an unusual or unexpected use of power. For that reason, I want to suggest that these rules are at risk. I think we should take that approach and ask them to fix it or come up with a better explanation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are all agreed that we shall write another letter?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/94-118 — TIMBER REGULATIONS, 1993

(For text of document, see Appendix F, p. 5F:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, I should first point out that the adoption of SOR/94-118 has provided solutions to five problems that the committee pointed out when it studied the previous regulations. Those problems are described in the comments prepared for the committee.

As to the regulations currently in effect, amendments have been promised to point 2 and points 4 to 9 as listed in the correspondence with the department.

I should point out that the amendments promised in reply to the comments made to points 7 and 8 are very important for the committee. For example, section 17 of the regulations requires that permit holders comply with the conditions of the permit provided by the forestry officer or of the contract with the department and the instructions given by the forestry officer.

As explained in the letter of November 16, 2007, the sole purpose of section 17 is to provide that failure to comply with the conditions of the permit, the terms of a contract or instructions given by a forestry officer also constitutes a violation of the regulations, punishable under section 7 of the Forestry Act by fine not exceeding $500, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

That a person could be jailed for failing to comply with one of these conditions is unusual, to say the least. The committee has had occasion to consider similar provisions while reviewing other regulations, including the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989. In its Report No. 78 that dealt with the disallowance of subsection 36(2) of those regulations, the committee explained why it considers such provisions to be unlawful in the absence of a clear statutory authority justifying their adoption.

The department writes that it concurs with the committee's view — and I quote: "that these provisions should result in an administrative action such as the cancellation of the permit or the termination of the contract, rather than criminal charges."

The remaining points are 1 and 3. In committee counsel's opinion, the reply to point 1, dealing with a drafting matter, is satisfactory. As to point 3, counsel made two comments. First, it is not clear whether the applicable fees, vaguely described as official published provincial fees, have been incorporated by reference in the regulations.

In its reply of July 14, 2008, the department asks for the committee's opinion on the best form of amendment. Committee counsel's suggestion is to define the words "official published provincial fees" rather than to include in the regulations a list of all stumpage fees per species and per province.

Second, counsel reminded the department that a previous department had already acknowledged that the committee's suggestion to amend the act to include explicit authority for the prescription of fees was a good one. The department writes that if Parliament were to initiate a review of Forestry Act, they would consider the possibility of asking for a clarification to be added.

Counsel's suggestion is to ask the department to make a clear commitment to securing from Parliament the explicit authority to impose these fees.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write to the department about point 3.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there any comments? Are all agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/2007-44 — REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION ON IRAN

(For text of document, see Appendix G, p. 5G:1)

Mr. Rousseau: Eight points were raised about this matter in our letter of October 9, 2008.

As the committee saw when it examined SOR/2008-118 at the March 26 meeting, the amendments promised in points 1, 4 and 6 have already been made.

Committee counsel feel that the reply provided to point 5 is satisfactory.

Points 2 and 3 deal with provisions that are identical to those that the committee examined at the April 2 meeting when it dealt with the Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Counsel made the same comments and the department provided the same responses.

The committee decided to ask for clarifications for point 2 and to request amendments to point 3. So it would be appropriate to do the same thing here.

In point 7, counsel wanted to know what the words "in-transit authorization" mean, who provides this authorization, and what purpose it serves.

Counsel also asked if it would be possible to define the term. The department replied that an in-transit authorization is a document issued by a foreign government authorizing the transit of a good through its territory to a third and final destination. The department does not mention eventually defining the term. Counsel's suggestion is to ask for confirmation that it is a term with which exporters are familiar.

If not, it would be appropriate to suggest that the department provide a definition in the regulations.

Point 8 deals with the requirement to provide the minister with a declaration that the information provided is true, complete and correct. Counsel first wanted to know the purpose of this requirement and the consequences of providing a false declaration. According to the department, a false statement could potentially lead to the application of section 3 of the act which states that a person who contravenes a regulation is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine or to imprisonment. If that is indeed the purpose, this statement does not achieve it. A person making a false statement does not contravene the regulations even if they say that the information provided is correct. So it seems that the wording of the regulations does not match the intention of their author. Counsel also commented on the drafting of the required statement, and the department's reply is not satisfactory.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write to the department once more indicating that the exchange of correspondence to this point has not led to a satisfactory resolution.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-68 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE VETERANS ALLOWANCE REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix H, p. 5H:1)

Mr. Rousseau: The letter sent to the department following the February 14, 2008 meeting raised three points.

The first point dealt with the information that has to be provided in an application for an allowance. Currently, the regulations state that all relevant information on the applicant's spouse and children be provided. The department sent us a copy of the sections of the manual that it uses to assess applications and, in its letter of May 8, 2008, states that it would be possible to amend the regulations to specify more clearly which information should be provided. This would certainly be preferable to what exists currently. It would be appropriate to ask the department to confirm that the regulations will be amended and to provide specifics of the amendments.

In reply to the second point, the department commits to amending the regulations to remove the discretionary authority that the committee feels the minister does not need.

On the third point, the department had proposed to make the promised amendments to sections 14(1) and 15(b) of the regulations the next time that the regulations are revised.

At the committee's request, the minister confirms that, if the regulations are not amended in the normal course of business in the fall of 2008, the promised amendments will be made independently. As there were no amendments in the fall, it would be appropriate to ask the department about the status.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write back to the department.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-129 — BALLAST WATER CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 5I:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, twenty points were raised in connection with these regulations. The good news is that it is suggested that satisfactory promises to amend or satisfactory explanations have been provided on all of these points with the exception of point 7, the last two paragraphs of point 16 and point 19.

Point 7 concerns several provisions that deal with how ships manage their ballast water in various circumstances and locations. The scheme is fairly intricate, and there appear to be provisions that contradict each other. The reply from Transport Canada does not address these inconsistencies and contradictions and, if anything, confirms that clarification of these provisions is required.

Concerning point 16, two specific questions were asked in the final two paragraphs. The department's reply does not deal with these.

On point 19, we questioned the authority for provisions requiring compliance with measures determined by the minister. The department indicated that it would consult with the Department of Justice on the issue. The result of those discussions should now be sought. I would suggest that a further letter on these matters be sent.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-273 — TOBACCO REPORTING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 5J:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, amendments to these regulations, including a number to address concerns raised by the committee, have been under development for some years. The anticipated date for prepublication has been pushed back several times, most recently from April 2008 to October 2008 and now to November 2009. These amendments are no doubt the subject of considerable discussion between the tobacco industry and Health Canada, and one suspects that they will be the subject of litigation. Regardless, the consideration for the committee is how much patience it wishes to continue to exercise on the file.

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

Mr. Young: Are helpful precedents available for consideration in this case?

Mr. Bernhardt: Traditionally, it depends on the nature of the amendments. When the issue concerns minor drafting amendments, it makes sense to be more patient or acquiesce that they be included in the overall rewrite. In this case, there were a number of amendments promised that run the gamut across the committee's concerns from minor drafting matters to English-French discrepancies to what the committee views as unlawful sub-delegations of discretion.

They are intricately caught up with this overall re-jigging of the regulations in the sense that the committee has at least one dozen concerns, and the regulations are not that long. It has complicated matters that there was an initial prepublication in 2001, and the discussions have been ongoing since that time. Members are well aware that the tobacco industry and the government tend to end up in court no matter the nature of the regulations or what happens in the regulations. I suspect that entire process is taking place behind the scenes with much haggling between the industry and government.

Mr. Lee: However, progress is still progress. This file will not be disposed of for quite some time yet, and we have another six months before they pre-publish. We will not get them to move that date up. They might miss the pre- publication objective and flip over to 2010. I am inclined to accept it as a moving file, albeit slowly; and counsel should continue to manage it in that way.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Moore: Mr. Lee suggests that we accept it. What will we do with it? Will we simply wait? Is there an expected date for the committee to know whether it will happen? Is the department required to give notice in advance of the November pre-publication date?

Mr. Bernhardt: We will send a letter to the department at the end of this summer to ask whether they are still on track for November 2009. Counsel will provide a progress report on the response.

SOR/2003-75 — CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

(For text of document, see Appendix K, p. 5K:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, as a result of delays in making this order, there was no legal authority to collect levies on eggs marketed in interprovincial or export trade from December 28, 2003, to March 25, 2004. Eventually the committee was told that no levies were collected during this period, but the provincial egg marketing boards voluntarily forwarded money to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. This led the committee to ask whether the boards and producers were aware that the money they were paying was on a voluntary basis. The Farm Products Council replied that the agency's board of directors is made up of representatives from the provincial egg marketing boards, so those provincial boards could be taken to have been aware of the situation.

As for the actual producers, the committee was told that it was difficult to say for sure and that any request for refunds or credits would cause serious administrative difficulties in terms of verification, and, in any event, the period in question was relatively brief. The committee then instructed counsel to convey to the agency that there seemed to be a rather lackadaisical attitude toward the matter and to ask what steps had been taken to ensure these situations do not occur in the future.

The Farm Products Council has replied that, in the future, the order will have an extended period of renewed application into the new year so any problems can be resolved without having the order unintentionally expire. As well, they promised to advise producers of the situation should there be a regulatory gap anytime in the future. If members find these assurances acceptable, the file could then be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Shall we close it? Are all agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

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

(For text of document, see Appendix L, p. 5L:1)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We now move to file SOR/2005-369, Regulations Amending the Employment Insurance Regulations.

Mr. Rousseau: Section 77.5(4) of the Employment Insurance Regulations imposes on the Employment Insurance Commission the duty to refer claimants to an appropriate agency in order, among other things, to have their employment needs assessed.

Committee counsel pointed out that failure to fulfill this duty would constitute a contravention of the regulations that could lead to prosecution, notwithstanding, of course, that the likelihood of that would be remote.

In its letter of July 2008, the department takes note of the comment and does not deny the possibility. Counsel feel that this reply is satisfactory. If the committee is in agreement, this file can be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2008-27 — ORDER RESPECTING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (NÁÁTS'IHCH'OH NATIONAL PARK RESERVE)

(For text of document, see Appendix M, p. 5M:1)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We now move to the next heading: "Reply Satisfactory (?)". SI/2008-27, Order Respecting the Withdrawal from Disposal of Certain Tracts of Territorial Land in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Rousseau: Committee counsel noticed a drafting error in the French version of this file. The department recognizes that there is an error, but suggests that it not be corrected because there is no danger of it causing confusion. The committee can accept this suggestion from the department because, in any event, the order will cease to have effect after March 31, 2012 and the department has undertaken to do what is necessary to avoid the error in future orders. Counsel has checked; orders made since the exchange of correspondence do not contain the error. If the committee is satisfied, this file may be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of the document, see Appendix N, p. 5N:1)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): The next item is SOR/2005-317, Regulations Amending the Employment Insurance Regulations.

Mr. Rousseau: When the committee examined this text, it noticed a discrepancy between the French and English versions. The department recognized the discrepancy, but indicated that the statutory provision in question was part of a pilot project that was scheduled to end in October 2008. The committee wanted confirmation that, if the project were to continue beyond its planned duration, the regulations would be amended to harmonize the two versions. The department gave this assurance in its letter of July 18, 2008. Nevertheless, the provision in question is still part of the regulations to this day and has not been amended.

Before considering the reply to be satisfactory, it would perhaps be appropriate to check with the department about the decision that has been made about the pilot program. If the committee is in agreement, counsel will write to the department once more to determine the status.

SOR/2005-373 — POLITICAL ACTIVITIES REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix O, p. 5O:1)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): The next item is SOR/2005-373 — Political Activities Regulations.

Mr. Rousseau: This item deals with the timeframe by which the Public Service Commission must render a decision when an employee who wants to run as a candidate in an election applies for unpaid leave.

At present, the regulations require the commission to make the decision as quickly as possible. The committee felt that the regulations should specify a timeframe and the commission proposed a deadline of 30 days except in exceptional cases when that would not be possible. The period was calculated in light of the fact that the employee has to apply at least 30 days before seeking a candidacy.

As counsel's letter of December 20, 2007 indicates, the committee's concern was that the commission's proposal might not leave enough time for an employee who, for example, decides to run in the last minute. The committee therefore asked if it was possible to make the timeframe shorter. In its letter of July 15, 2008, the commission sets out in detail the reasons why it considers the 30-day timeframe to be appropriate. The explanation seems to be satisfactory, but this is an area in which committee members have more experience than counsel. That is why the matter appears under the heading "Reply satisfactory (?)". Counsel will defer to the advice of committee members in this matter.

[English]

Mr. Lee: That falls under the rubric of "Reply Satisfactory (?)," does it not? Colleagues will know that the committee has been monitoring the evolution of these political participation regulations for the public service and RCMP for quite a long time now — 15 years or more. If there is any impairment from the perspective of the citizen with the Charter right to participate in politics, the important thing is to ensure that the impairment is reasonable.

The question becomes: Is 30 days too long a notice period? I think that is the issue. Counsel is inclined to accept it. I think I am, too.

I do not have a legal perspective. Does counsel have a legal measuring stick from any of the court decisions on this issue?

Mr. Bernhardt: At the time, I believe the committee's concern was that if the commission could take 30 days to decide, it might leave the potential candidate with a very short window after that to do whatever needs to be done to arrange for his candidature.

Mr. Lee: I am sorry. Is this the employer's 30-day window?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes. When the person wants leave to become a candidate, the committee wanted a fixed period of time for that decision to be made. The suggestion was 30 days. There was some concern that if the full 30 days was taken there might not be much time at the other end.

Mr. Lee: In reality, the time when that would be problematic for an employee is if there is a snap election. That happens federally and provincially, but it does not happen very often municipally. That could be a problem for an employee.

As a practical example, in the very unlikely event that Parliament were to dissolve for an election next week, the 30- day turnaround would be a problem if there was a federal public servant somewhere in the country who wanted to run federally. It would be a problem because the election period would start to run almost immediately.

I would be inclined to put that suggestion to the Public Service Commission and say that there are some scenarios where the 30 days might be a real problem, and look for some method or mechanism to compress the 30 days if an election is in progress.

Mr. Galipeau: In circumstances such as this.

Mr. Lee: In any unanticipated election that might happen federally or provincially, the right of a public servant to seek election or a nomination — or both — might be impaired by this 30-day period.

I think we should write back and say that we have spotted real-life scenarios where the 30 days might be a problem. We should ask if there any way they could, in an exceptional case or circumstance, compress the 30 days.

Mr. Rousseau: We can certainly ask.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: There is another side to this question. The 30-day period allows some organizations to see how the person could be replaced and whether they can do without that person. Do we have to specify the number of days? We specify a maximum of 30 days. Say, for example, that a company, out of spite, decided not to take the time to consider a reply to an employee. I do not know how this could be worded; perhaps we could use the phrase "no longer than 30 days". We have to allow for the possibility of a reply coming sooner than 30 days. Some small organizations might find it harder to proceed than a large one where more people are able to replace the person.

It is more difficult in smaller institutions than in a large one because there are more people who can act as replacements I am not sure how we could word it, but possibly people could be put in a difficult position if they were told that 30 days were allowed for the reply and they were going to have to wait 30 days.

Mr. Rousseau: We are talking about the Public Service Commission making the decision here; that is where the application for leave is dealt with. That being the case, the kinds of problems that you mentioned are not likely to occur.

Ms. Gagnon: Okay.

Mr. Galipeau: If you want a quick reply, you can always get one, but it may not be the one you want.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): What about something like "as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than X"?

Mr. Galipeau: The point that Mr. Lee raised is real. Outside of certain parameters, we have fixed-date elections municipally, so 30 days is quite reasonable in those circumstances. In some provinces and in the federal Parliament, we have fixed-date elections, but that only applies when we have majority governments. Otherwise, we are left to the vagaries of the opposition most of the time, but as we have noticed recently, also the government. It is very difficult to apply this in these circumstances.

Mr. Hoback: Are we overstepping our boundaries by making a recommendation on a date? Perhaps we should go back to them and say that we want to see a fixed date, and let them decide what it should be. Why are we deciding it for them?

Mr. Young: I share Mr. Lee's concerns because running for public office is as basic a right as free speech. If you are putting an effective limit on the right of a class of persons because they happen to work for the government, it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to address it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): What if we write back identifying the problem and ask that they consider a remedy?

Mr. Rousseau: We can certainly ask.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, and ask how they would deal with it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We will ask how they would deal with it and see what their response is. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

SOR/95-548 — MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD) 1995 — 2

(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 5P:1)

Mr. Rousseau: At its meeting of March 5, 2009, the committee took note of a letter from the minister indicating that promised changes would be made through a miscellaneous regulatory amendment and that amendments to convert to the metric system would be made later when a complete revision of the regulations was underway.

The committee accepted this suggestion but wanted to be quickly informed when the amendments were made.

We have received a partial reply. In its letter of March 17, 2009, the agency indicates that the miscellaneous regulatory amendment is expected to be adopted by May. But the agency is silent about the amendments to convert to the metric system. We do not know, therefore, when the revision of the regulations could be complete.

It would be appropriate to write to the agency once more to get this information, if it is available.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-620— CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE REGULATIONS

SOR/96-108— CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 5Q:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Last April, the committee was told that amendments, including those to address the committee's concerns, were being prepared and it was hoped they would be finalized by the fall. This forecast has proven to be overly optimistic. Therefore, at this time, a further update as to progress would seem to be in order.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-517 — GOVERNMENT PROPERTY TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 5R:1)

SOR/97-543 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM), 1997-1

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 5S:1)

SOR/2007-100 — TARIFF AMENDING THE SHIPS REGISTRY AND LICENSING FEES TARIFF

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 5T:1)

SOR/2007-260 — ASBESTOS PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 5U:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, to follow on with the usual practice of dealing with the next three headings simply as three groups, under "Action Promised" there are a total of 10 amendments promised in connection with these four instruments. We will be following up progress on those after the meeting.

I note, in addition, that SOR/97-543 also makes 10 promised amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 5V:1)

SOR/2008-45 — EXEMPTION REGULATIONS (PERSONS)

SOR/2009-29 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EXEMPTION REGULATIONS (PERSONS) (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix W, p. 5W:1)

SOR/2008-137 — RULES AMENDING THE CANADIAN FORCES GRIEVANCE BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE (REVIEW OF A GRIEVANCE BY WAY OF A HEARING) (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix X, p. 5X:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under "Action Taken," there are 11 instruments. These include five amendments that resolve committee concerns.

As well, an amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act, which came into force June 8, 2008, retroactively validated the series of divestiture regulations that is on the agenda. The committee questioned the legality of these instruments, and there is a short note accompanying the materials that explains the details of that.

SI//2007-18 — ORDER FIXING FEBRUARY 10, 2007 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI//2008-16 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AS APPROPRIATE MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI//2008-53 — ORDER DECLARING THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF PART X OF THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT, OTHER THAN SECTION 90, APPLY TO PPP CANADA INC.

SI//2008-57 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

SI//2008-60 — CERTAIN FORMER EMPLOYEES OF SDL OPTICS, INC. REMISSION ORDER NO. 2

SI//2008-62 — VERA HENDERSON INCOME TAX REMISSION ORDER

SI//2008-68 — APO-TRIAVIR EVALUATION FEES REMISSION ORDER

SI//2008-69 — OVERPAYMENTS OF CANADA EDUCATION SAVINGS GRANTS REMISSION ORDER

SI//2008-76 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 20, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

SI//2008-78 — ORDER FIXING JULY 7, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TWO ACTS

SI//2008-82 — ORDER AMENDING THE TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT (SASKATCHEWAN) REMISSION ORDER

SI//2008-83 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 1, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT, OTHER THAN SECTION 64

SI//2008-84 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 5, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF SECTIONS 146 AND 147 OF THE ACT

SI//2008-91 — EXEMPTION ORDER NO. 1, 1997 (SENDING OF NOTICES AND DOCUMENTS) (REPEALED)

SI//2008-92 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 10, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SI//2008-93 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT OTHER THAN SECTIONS 51 AND 52

SI//2008-96 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 1, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF SECTIONS 13 AND 15 OF THE ACT

SI//2008-97 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 1, 2008 AS THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE ACT

SI//2008-98 — JOAN CLYM REMISSION ORDER

SI//2008-99 — CERTAIN MARINE CARRIERS REMISSION ORDER

SI//2008-100 — HÉMA-QUÉBEC (GST/HST) REMISSION ORDER

SOR/2008-113 — ORDER 2008-87-01-03 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2008-149 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MIGRATORY BIRDS REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2008-174 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2008-175 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-176 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-236 — FRUIT REMISSION ORDER, 2008

SOR/2008-245 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-246 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CERTAIN RUMINANTS AND THEIR PRODUCTS IMPORTATION PROHIBITION REGULATIONS, NO. 2

SOR/2008-255 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS OF THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

SOR/2008-276 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-279 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ORGANIC PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

SOR/2008-281 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE AND DETERMINING THE COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS AND DESIGNS OF A TWENTY-FIVE CENT CIRCULATION COIN

SOR/2008-289 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (ESKETEMC BAND)

Mr. Bernhardt: Finally, under "Statutory Instruments Without Comment" are listed 34 instruments that have been reviewed and found to comply with all of the committee's criteria.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there any comments on any of those instruments? Is there anything else anyone would like to add or question?

Mr. Lee: I would like to go back to the future and ask the joint chairmen if they could manage to have a steering committee meeting before the next meeting to deal with the issues raised by the Library of Parliament and the proposed relocation of our secretariat.

It would be good if the steering committee could come up with a consensus because there are a lot of issues there. If we bring them to committee without a consensus, we could spend an hour and a half on it. I would suggest that the chairmen try and do that, which will help us when the matter is raised.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Do we know when Senator Eyton is returning? I think it is a good idea.

Mr. Szabo: Can counsel tell us if there are any matters in the hopper for the reproductive technologies act?

Mr. Bernhardt: Off the top of my head, I have not seen anything. I can look into it.

Mr. Szabo: I will consult with you. My only concern, just for the interest of members, is that it is a bill passed a long time ago that required hundreds of regulations, very few of which have ever come forward.

In the absence of those, the authority proposed to change under the act reverts or remains with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, who have their own set of rules beyond Parliament. It is almost a way to frustrate legislation by not doing regulations.

Mr. Young: I would like to raise an administrative matter when the time is correct.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Go ahead, please.

Mr. Young: I gave informal notice to the committee members the last time we met that it was my intent to bring forward a motion regarding the Australia trip. I have thought about it and would still like to do that.

I do not want to minimize the committee's work in any way or the importance of this meeting that comes around once every few years. However, under the financial circumstances, given the recession and the fact we are going into a deficit position for the purposes of economic stimulus, I think it is inappropriate to send eight people.

I would like to make a motion that the committee revisit the budget and approve a budget that would support four members going from this committee — a maximum of four, one of whom would be a staff member.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): In terms of procedure, would you propose to draft a motion that would be tabled for discussion at the next meeting?

Mr. Young: If that is the wish of the committee, or if that is the procedure, of course. This is notice of that motion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): That is fine. We are happy to receive that.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Lee: That is more fodder for the steering committee, Mr. Young.

Are we meeting next week?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): No, the next meeting is May 7.

(The committee adjourned.)

---