---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 3 - Evidence,  April 29, 2010

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, April 29, 2010

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

Senator Yonah Martin and Mr. Andrew Kania (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Good morning everyone.

We normally have a steering committee made up of both joint chairs, the two vice-chairs and two others members. We must choose those two other members. One must be a Liberal from the Senate and the other must be a member of the Bloc Québécois from the House of Commons.

Can we have either volunteers or nominations for a Liberal from the Senate and a Bloc member from the House?

Mr. Szabo: Who are the Liberal Senate members?

Senator Harb: Senator Moore.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Senator Moore, would you like to be on our steering committee?

Senator Moore: Absolutely.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We need a member from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: For the Bloc Québécois, I would nominate Christiane Gagnon, but unfortunately, she has not arrived yet.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-135 — PHYTOPHTHORA RAMORUM COMPENSATION REGULATIONS

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: This file was before the committee on December 3, at which time it was the wish of members that it be returned in the new year with a draft letter for consideration. Three points were originally raised concerning this instrument. An amendment was promised to address one of those points.

The first outstanding point relates to section 5. It concerns the requirement to keep records for three years following an award of compensation for destroyed plants. The department's explanation as to how this condition will be enforced raises a number of concerns as set out in the draft letter.

First, it is unclear why there is a need for a successful applicant to maintain the records and whether the minister will not already have all the necessary documentation. Clarification was sought in this regard. Second, there does not appear to be the necessary authority to impose a requirement to keep records, nor to impose a condition subsequent in relation to the award. These are distinct issues, which both happen to apply in this case. While the committee has often dealt with the principle that imposing a requirement to keep records requires clear enabling authority, the issue of conditions subsequent has not often arisen. As the letter explains, the power to make regulations authorizing an action to be taken, such as the awarding of compensation, or a licence or permit, is presumed to include the implied power to set out conditions precedent to granting that thing, but not conditions subsequent. Of note is that the wording of the act, in this case, seems to confer a relatively narrow power to prescribe conditions.

Another point concerns the department's suggestion that set-off is available to reclaim the award amount in the event that the record-keeping conditions are breached. This point is secondary given concerns about the validity of the condition itself. In any case, set-off can be obtained by the Crown where a debt is owed to Her Majesty.

The department appears to have assumed that a breach of a subsequent condition will transform an already granted award into a debt to the Crown. Perhaps, we should ask the department to provide the legal rationale or precedent for such a claim.

The third outstanding point on this file relates to the schedule to the regulations. With benefit of members' input from the December meeting, as explained in the letter, it appears that there is no gap in container sizes set out in the schedule. There is still a question, however, of possible overlap between the container sizes set out in items 3 to 6 and the tree size set out in item 8.

The department's advice on this issue can be sought.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We have a draft letter. Are there comments?

Mr. Lee: I think counsel has done a good job to reflect previous discussion on this issue. I like the draft.

Mr. Szabo: I point out that if this letter is sent, the previous letter we sent was dated June 26, 2008. The response came back January 5, 2009, some six months later, starting off with, ``Thank you for your letter of June 26.'' I want to flag that we should not allow much latitude for a response. When we have delays like that one, should we note in this letter that the committee is anxious to discharge these matters and that the six-month wait for the last reply was not appreciated?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Should we include a deadline?

Senator Harb: I agree with Mr. Szabo's and Mr. Lee's comments. I find strange the communication and the fact that, although a decision was rendered on an issue, they still want to keep documentation.

How did the committee learn of this issue? Was it because someone complained?

Mr. Abel: When we first reviewed the file, it struck us as a curious question. The regulations are clear that the condition applies that they must keep records for three years after awarding compensation. It occurred to us to ask in the first letter what the consequence would be not to keep records, and how they would enforce that condition. Their reply gave rise to further questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Regarding a deadline in the letter, I normally suggest 60 days. We can seek to obtain an answer before the summer.

Senator Moore: Sixty days is too long. Can we make the deadline 30 days? We have to set the agenda.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Okay, let us make it 30 days.

Mr. Szabo: Our last meeting before the summer recess is June 10.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): That sounds good.

Mr. Szabo: We will have a response in time for our meeting of June 10.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Done.

SOR/2002-301 — INTERPROVINCIAL MOVEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 3A:1.)

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: The issue again is one of information keeping requirements, this time in respect to consignments of hazardous waste. The committee previously concluded that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, does not contain the necessary enabling authority. Environment Canada has not accepted the committee's view. However, in 2006, the department indicated that new regulations were expected, and these new regulations would respond to the committee's concerns. By 2008, the department advised that the record-keeping provision in the regulations would be retained, but that a review of the act itself was under way and the need for greater clarity concerning record keeping would be considered as part of this review.

Last May, the minister stated that if amendments to Part 7 of the act are proposed in the future, consideration will be given, at that time, to adding to the regulations a provision expressly authorizing regulations imposing obligations to keep records.

The chair's November 4 letter asked whether amendments to Part 7 were expected to be introduced in the near future, and if so, whether the amendment the committee was seeking would be included. The minister's reply again advises he is not in a position to comment on whether a future bill will include such an amendment.

Senator Moore: That is not what he says. He says he is not ``at liberty.''

He is the minister. What kind of an answer is that?

Mr. Bernhardt: I suspect he is relying on confidences of the Privy Council as to whether legislation will be introduced.

There is also no indication, if there is a bill, whether this provision will be included.

The act mandates a five-year parliamentary review. The triggering date for the next review was March 31. I presume that some time in the near future, there will be an order of reference to a committee in one of the houses to commence an overall review of the act.

That being the case, one option might be for the committee, at this time, to convey its concerns to the committee that will undertake the broader review of the act to open that front. In the meantime, the committee can also continue to make inquiries of the minister.

Senator Moore: We have had use in the past of a process called the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program. We have not used that process for at least three or four years.

This is not the first time we have something that can be put into that program. The fear in this matter seems to be opening up the whole act.

Do we track those amendments? How is the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program put into effect? Do we initiate it? Do we suggest it to the Department of Justice Canada? Can we consider initiating that process now with the build-up of these sorts of responses without having to open the whole statute?

Mr. Bernhardt: The process you refer to, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program, is designed to make miscellaneous amendments of a housekeeping nature to various statutes.

Suggestions or requests for inclusion in that bill are accumulated and collected by the Department of Justice Canada. At some point, the department puts together a set of proposals; in effect, it is a draft bill. That bill is sent, before it is introduced, for pre-study by committees in both houses. The final version of the draft is arrived at. It is tabled in the House of Commons and proceeds through the houses quickly.

You are correct that it has been a number of years since there was such a bill. We made informal inquiries to the Department of Justice Canada. We are assured the program is still alive. They are still gathering possible amendments to be included in a set of proposals. Eventually, there will be a set of proposals and a bill. We have not been given any indication of the timing for that bill.

Senator Moore: When did you last inquire?

Mr. Bernhardt: The last time we asked was probably in the fall. We were beginning to have the impression that the program had either been abandoned or was dormant because it had been so long since there was a bill.

Senator Moore: It is a neat process because the minister does not need to be concerned that an entire act will be opened up for review. Only one provision from a bill goes through our committee. The act is amended without ministers having an entire statute for which they are responsible reviewed by each house.

Mr. Bernhardt: This committee has made that suggestion from time to time in respect of issues where the response is that the solution is to amend an act to clarify an enabling authority.

Senator Moore: Is it appropriate for you to suggest that now may be the time for them to table a proposal? How do we advance this proposal?

For example, this process is a neat way to clean up this item.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are you suggesting we propose this model at this stage for inclusion in one bill?

Senator Moore: No, I want to see the normal process of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program commenced now. It has been years.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Do you have a list of amendments you propose?

Mr. Bernhardt: We will keep track of the fact that the committee has made this suggestion. It has been a suggestion usually put to a department that one option is to include the item in the miscellaneous statute amendment process. We have no idea whether the suggestion will be acted upon until we see the set of proposals.

Mr. Armstrong: I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. CEPA is coming up for review in another three weeks. Recommendations will be made and a report issued. Hopefully, that review will take care of some the issues we are discussing.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): I think that Senator Moore has an interesting idea. Perhaps, we should bring forward the various matters that can be part of this amendment process at another meeting.

Mr. Bernhardt: In the meantime, we can write to the Minister of Justice to ask if a set of proposals is expected to come forward in the foreseeable future.

Senator Moore: That would be good.

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

Mr. Lee: Chair, as I look at this item, I do not see that the impugned set of regulations is hugely onerous on a whole envelope of citizens. However, there is a constituency being required to keep records where there may not be real authority.

Due to the narrow focus of the bill, I was having trouble generating enthusiasm for aggressive response on our part. We are back to the same old paradigm of walk, wait or disallow. It may be we are into a wait situation here because I do not think there has been a critical mass of burden placed on citizens to warrant aggressive action on our part.

I think we are in a wait scenario, but it could be a long time — perhaps five years, and many sessions of Parliament — depending on how things go. I would keep it on the shelf and continue to monitor it.

By way of comment on miscellaneous statutes, it is not immediately clear this item would qualify as a miscellaneous statute amendment. It is the imposition of a burden on a citizen. That amendment might not be a technical one; it is a statutory enactment that creates something that was not there before.

Mr. Albrecht: I am in favour of waiting. It looks like a process is beginning. Our colleague indicated a review is coming up at committee. It seems we will start two processes at once and they will be in conflict with each other. I am in favour of putting the item on the shelf for now.

Mr. Bernhardt: Maybe we can write to the Environment Committee and bring the item to their attention.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are all in favour of the suggestion we write to the Environment Committee?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-109 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 3B:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: These regulations define an ``offsite treatment facility'' to mean ``a facility that treats effluent from a mill to reduce or eliminate deleterious substances, where the facility is not owned by the owner of a mill.'' There are then requirements imposed on mills that discharge effluent into such facilities.

The definition of ``offsite treatment facility'' is broad enough to include a municipal water treatment system and, in fact, there are paper mills that have arrangements to discharge their waste into municipal sewer systems. The committee has expressed doubt whether placing effluent from a mill into an offsite treatment facility can be said to constitute the deposit of a substance in a place where it may ``enter water frequented by fish.'' Such deposits are prohibited under the Fisheries Act, unless they are authorized by the regulations. The argument is that, if discharging mill effluent to an offsite treatment facility contravenes the act, it follows that the act is contravened every time any household connected to a municipal sewage system puts a deleterious substance into the system.

The department has no real response to this argument. It refers instead to risk management analysis and the potential risk of mill effluent to the environment. None of this response is relevant to the question of whether deposits of waste into municipal sewers are prohibited deposits under the Fisheries Act in the first place.

The minister's January 18 letter again makes no counter-argument and concedes that it is at least arguable that the department's interpretation leads to the conclusion that, every time household waste enters a municipal sewer system, the Fisheries Act has been violated.

As noted in the minister's letter, the government proposes regulations governing discharges from water treatment facilities and there is no doubt that the act contains the authority for these regulations. The minister also advises that the provisions in the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations that have been questioned by the committee will be revoked concurrent with the coming into force of the new regulations.

In fact, the proposed new wastewater systems effluent regulations were pre-published for notice and comment on March 20. There will be a lengthy phase-in period and, in the pre-publication, there is no mention of amendments to these regulations being made concurrently.

Perhaps, at this time, it is advisable to ask the department to confirm the information given in the minister's earlier letter that the intent remains that, when the new regulations come into place that will govern municipalities and their discharges from their water treatment systems, these provisions in the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations will be revoked. In the minister's words, they will be repetitive.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-20 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE WILD ANIMAL AND PLANT TRADE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 3C:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: These regulations and the act they are made under implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Under the convention and also under the act, where animals and plants that are listed in the appendix to the convention change, the regulations are to be amended within 90 days to reflect the change.

None of the changes covered by SOR/2009-20 were included within the required time. According to the department, they were not included due to a ``combination of reasons,'' as explained in the note prepared for members this morning. None of these reasons seem convincing. The department also claims that other countries have similar problems and these problems might be the subject of future talks among the parties to the convention.

I suppose that is all well and good but I suggest the department be asked what it intends to do in the interim to try to ensure that it complies with the law.

Mr. Albrecht: I agree that the arguments might not be convincing but neither are they unreasonable. The second page refers to the larger group seeking to draft an amendment for all the groups. Therefore, I agree with writing a letter and seeking clarification.

Mr. Lee: I find one statement troubling. It is on page 2 of the June 11 letter to Mr. Rousseau. I am looking at the last paragraph, about two lines in. It says: ``In fact, the time frame set out in section 21(2) of the Act is not a requirement, despite its wording.''

The acting director general seems to be saying that the law is not the law, a requirement is not a requirement. I could reply to that statement myself but I will not. I will ask counsel if he understands what she means when she says that.

Mr. Bernhardt: I take that, Mr. Lee, to be a rather oblique reference to the mandatory-directory distinction in law, which is often misunderstood by many people, including officials who administer regulations.

A ``mandatory requirement'' means that, if it is not complied with, the thing done is invalid. In this case, if that 90- day requirement was a mandatory requirement and was not complied with, the regulations would be invalid.

That is not the suggestion here. We would agree it is a directory requirement. The problem is that the directory requirement is often misconstrued to mean they do not really have to do it. However, a directory requirement is still a legal obligation. One can go to court and have it enforced; one can obtain a declaration that the act has been contravened if it has not been complied with.

The difference is that the thing they have done — in this case, the making of the regulation — is not rendered invalid by their contravening the act. Therefore, yes, there has been a breach of a legal requirement — a ``shall'' is a ``shall'' — but, because it is only a directory requirement, the regulations are still valid. It is often misconstrued that a directory requirement means it is like a ``may.'' It is still a ``shall'' but, if one does not comply with it, one still has a valid regulation.

Mr. Lee: Since our Parliament has passed this directory requirement, should we not act to ensure it is fully complied with?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think the recommendation is that the department be told that there may be a problem in the convention and there will be international meetings to maybe amend the convention and so on but, in the meantime, they have an act of Parliament that gives them a 90-day deadline.

Mr. Lee: It is a requirement, correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: It is a requirement.

Mr. Lee: Can we make that clear?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes; it is equivalent to a tabling requirement. If something is not tabled, it is still in force but there is still a requirement to table it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Are there other comments? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-109 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (GLASS DOORS AND ENCLOSURES)

SOR/2009-111 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (CORDED WINDOW COVERING PRODUCTS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 3D:1.)

Mr. Abel: The Hazardous Products Act requires that orders made amending a schedule to the act be laid before each house of Parliament within 15 sitting days of their making. Correspondence with the department confirms that these orders were deposited with the houses but after the deadline set out in the act. In connection with the related file recently considered by the committee, registered as SOR/2008-230, the department promised to correct its process so that these orders will be tabled within the required time frame.

This correction appears to have been made, as more recent orders have been tabled in the houses on time. As the situation then seems to have been addressed, perhaps this file can be closed.

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

Mr. Lee: Chair, I am thinking about this compliance with tabling. I wonder if counsel keeps around a copy of Speaker Fraser's ruling from 1992.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, and it is often referred to.

Mr. Lee: It is often sent out and referred to, is it? Okay, thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): The file is closed.

SOR/2002-438 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, 2002-2 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 3E:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Chair, the issue here at first seemed to be a minor question of drafting; namely, whether when words are replaced in the text of a definition, the term that is defined also changes if it contains the words in question. The point is a technical one.

The Department of Justice claims that it does. The difficulty is this view runs counter to the way in which federal regulations have always been drafted. The practice in the past has been to make a specific amendment to the defined term, as well as to the text of the definition. If nothing else, an assurance should be sought that if the conclusion on which the previous practice was based is no longer considered correct, in the future, federal regulations will be drafted in conformity with the new provisions, so at least there is consistency in the approach.

In the course of all this discussion, a potentially more significant concern arose, and this relates to the scope of changes to regulations that can be made without actually amending them pursuant to the Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act.

Section 27(b) of that act states that:

In maintaining a consolidation of the statutes or regulations, the Minister may . . .

(b) include historical references or other information that enhances the value of the consolidation;

It says absolutely nothing about altering any part of the regulation as it was enacted by the regulation maker. The letter from the chief legislative counsel seems to reflect the view that anything that is considered non-substantive by the Department of Justice Canada can be corrected administratively by the department.

As the note explains, there is nothing in section 27(b) that permits this so-called correction of portions of a regulation that were enacted by the regulation maker. Any such component forms part of the enactment and, in the absence of a clear provision to the contrary, no part may be altered other than by a formal amendment.

The changes in this situation are minor but the underlying principle is potentially significant. Again, subject to Parliament explicitly providing otherwise, law may not be changed other than by formal amendment. Perhaps this principle should be made clear to the department.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-294 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR HEADLAMPS)

SOR/2008-73 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (DOOR LOCKS AND DOOR RETENTION COMPONENTS)

SOR/2008-199 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (BUMPERS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 3F:1.)

Mr. Abel: Of the four points originally raised concerning these instruments, two have now been resolved by amendments made by SOR/2009-34. The two outstanding points are addressed in detail by the note prepared for members today.

Concerning the first point, prior to the making of SOR/2008-199, the precise authority relied upon for making or amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations was recited in the recommendation preceding the instrument. This typically included one or more paragraphs of section 5 of the act.

In SOR/2008-199, and in the more recently made SOR/2009-34, only section 11 of the act is recited. This change is apparently the result of a policy change by the department. As the note indicates, section 11 is merely a general authority of no specificity, whereas section 5 lists in substantive detail the elements of authority relied upon to amend the regulations. The citation of section 11 alone provides nothing useful to the reader. Perhaps the department can be asked to explain why section 5 is no longer cited but it is difficult to imagine a compelling reason in this regard.

The remaining point treads over what will be familiar ground for the committee concerning the incorporation by reference of external materials as amended from time to time or, in other words, in an ambulatory manner. It was pointed out that there is no authority to incorporate by reference regulations made by the ECE, which are technical documents created by the Inland Transport Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, in an ambulatory manner.

In addition to the general rule against doing so, which was explained fully in the committee's Report No. 80, in this case it must be noted also that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act expressly authorizes the ambulatory incorporation by reference of technical standards documents, which are a particular type of document as defined in the act.

ECE Regulations do not meet this definition. Since Parliament saw fit to expressly allow the ambulatory incorporation of a class of documents, it falls that such authority is necessary and that other documents are not authorized to be incorporated in an ambulatory manner. If Parliament had intended for this incorporation to be possible, presumably it would have said so.

The department's reply is based on the government's response to the committee's Report No. 80, which, as the committee has determined, mis-characterizes the presumption against ambulatory incorporation by reference as applying only to documents generated by or modified by the government. Thus the government's response argues that express authority is needed to make an ambulatory incorporation of an internally generated document, not an externally generated document such as the EC regulations.

It seems worth noting that the government has indicated an intention to pursue a general legislative remedy to this ongoing issue. Perhaps in the interim, however, an undertaking can be sought from the department that, if such a remedy is not forthcoming within a reasonable time or does not resolve the concern on this specific file, an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act expressly authorizing the ambulatory incorporation of these ECE Regulations will be made.

Mr. Lee: There is one practical side of this issue. In the auto industry, there is a huge effort to harmonize with our major trading partner in an area where we do a ton of trade. Therefore, incorporation by reference will be almost second nature in this stuff over time, if not already. That is the practical side.

Counsel, on the legal side, I was surprised to see, in their response to question 3, that they think that ambulatory incorporation by reference is accepted and authorized by the common law.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Mr. Lee: Where does that view come from?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Let us fill in other members on incorporation by reference, generally, because we have a lot of new members. Please include the letter we sent to the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Bernhardt: As Mr. Abel alluded to, this issue has been ongoing for some time. In the previous Parliament, the committee prepared a lengthy and detailed report analyzing the law that relates to incorporation by reference and setting out what it considered to be the applicable legal principles. The Department of Justice Canada takes a somewhat different view, basically based on extrapolations of court decisions dealing with constitutional language requirements and what does and does not need to be in both official languages to be incorporated into regulations. The department tries reason from that and apply the same principles to incorporation by reference, generally.

One of the main purposes of the committee's report was to go through and refute that argument.

While the Department of Justice Canada has not agreed with the committee, the minister has indicated that they want to propose a general piece of legislation to deal with the issue of incorporation by reference and set out general rules that will apply to these sorts of incorporations, throughout the statute book as a whole.

Toward the end of the last session, the committee put together a position paper confirming its traditional view, but also indicating what it thought was appropriate to include in such a bill. There are other issues here; for example, access to the law is significant.

If they incorporate an agreement in ECE Regulation, then people have to comply with that ECE Regulation. How do they obtain the regulation? How do they know they have the most up-to-date version? Do they have to pay someone to obtain it? Those issues come in here as well as the legal principles.

There are questions of access and availability to the law that the committee addressed and made proposals on, in its submission. This paper was submitted in December, prior to prorogation. I met with officials from the regulations section of the Department of Justice in early January to go through and discuss the committee's paper and to give them clarification and expansion on certain points, and to discuss the issue generally. I presume that the drafting, preparation and consultations on the bill are proceeding. I have not heard anything since January on that issue.

Of course, the response one tends to receive from a department when we raise a particular incorporation in a particular regulation is that they prefer to wait and see until this bill comes out. The problem for the committee with that response is the committee does not know if the bill will come out, when the bill will come out or what will be in the bill. Therefore, it is a bit difficult for the committee to say, fine, wait and see.

We propose to say here specifically that if there is no bill within a reasonable time, or if for some reason that bill does not resolve the problem in this particular case, will they agree that they will then amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to clearly give them the power to do this?

Mr. Lee: What about the common law reference?

Mr. Bernhardt: The common law reference is a reference to the Supreme Court judgments on constitutional language requirements.

Mr. Lee: Have they cited that component of the common law clearly? I do not see it here.

Mr. Bernhardt: No; again because at this point, rather than the two parties rehashing the arguments, what tends to happen is we will write a letter, refer to the committee's Report No. 80 and they will write a letter back referring to the government's response to the committee's Report No. 80. It is a kind of shorthand rather than regurgitating the 20- page arguments back and forth. Everyone knows where the two sides stand on the issue.

Mr. Lee: They have offered us a junk bond here on question 3, saying the common law authorizes incorporation by reference, IBR. I am saying no, if the common law authorized IBR, we would not have to pass a statute to implement it. Can you ask them, please, to provide a clear, comprehensive common law reference that will allow us to conclude that the common law authorizes IBR? That is simple.

Mr. Bernhardt: I fear the response to that request will be to receive a copy of the government response to the committee's report.

Mr. Lee: Did the government response state that the common law authorized IBR?

Mr. Bernhardt: It made the argument; and the committee, in its view, refuted those arguments.

Mr. Lee: These people are making it up on the run. I am sorry; that is my view, not the committee's. Okay, I will stop there. However, if there is correspondence, you might want to indicate a degree of skepticism on the part of at least some members here that the common law authorizes IBR.

Mr. Bernhardt: We can send them additional copies of the committee's report, which deals with that point in great detail.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We should follow up with the Department of Justice now. You had the meeting in January and it is essentially May.

Senator Harb: On the regulation amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, alternative requirement for headlamps, where we talk about the amendment — section 108.1 — it says that buses and trucks ``may be'' equipped with headlamps that emit white light, and it goes on. My question concerns that ``may be''; is it must be, shall be, could be? Is it optional or is it compulsory?

Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, it is optional in the sense that the regulation set out a general standard that all vehicles must comply with. Then it makes an exception. It says, however, these sorts of vehicles may meet this standard, in the sense that they have two options; they can meet the general standard or they can meet the specific standard. That is the structure. The problem is that the standard is incorporated by reference as amended from time to time.

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

SOR/2003-39 — NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD PROCESSING PLANT REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix G, p. 3G:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Fifteen points were raised after the initial review of these regulations. Following their submission to the committee, six were pursued further in counsel's March 31, 2009 letter.

Amendments are now promised to address all but one of these points. The National Energy Board, however, is asking for confirmation that these amendments will be acceptable. Assuming that members agree they are acceptable, we will write and so advise the board.

The one remaining matter is dealt with in point 3 of the concerns. It relates to the definition of ``release.'' The English version lists nine activities that are included in the term ``release.'' The French version lists two activities and then eight other activities that are included in the first two.

The suggestion was made to the board that this difference can lead potentially to the two versions being interpreted differently. The board argues there is no discrepancy, and because everyone concerned knows what the regulations are intended to mean, the definition should be left as it is.

The point is not so much that there is any irresolvable contradiction, but simply that different structures increase the potential for different readings. Here, it seems possible to restructure the English to parallel the French. Again, it is not a question of there being an obvious discrepancy; I suppose one way to put it is whether structuring things differently is tempting fate. It is for members to decide whether that is something they want to pursue.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): I have a question to counsel and to members that have been a part of this committee in the past. When it comes to a file like this one, where five out of six items have been addressed satisfactorily, does the committee continue to demand the final piece?

I guess it depends on the file, but I am curious as to the history of this committee and what it has done. How vigilant, how adamant are we as a committee?

Mr. Lee: We try to avoid having sticky fingers and hanging on to things forever. However, if that sixth point was a significant point of principle and practicality, that is not sticky fingers; that is where we have our jaws firmly clenched on the issue.

However, in this case, we are signalling a potential for uncertainty over time if this technique continues to be used, not only in this regulation. I sense where you are going, chair, and I tend to agree that we should indicate clearly our position and then we can close the file, because the rest of the file has seen progress. I do not know what the other members feel, but that is my view on this file.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Is everyone agreed that we will write back that the amendments are fine and let that last one go?

Some Hon. Members: Yes.

Senator Moore: Are you including Mr. Lee's comments with regard to our concern about that sixth item?

Mr. Bernhardt: There is somewhat of a risk. If they are willing to live with that, then that is fine. I cannot read the provision now and say the two are different; it is only that when they do things that way, they open the door.

Mr. Lee: If that alleged failure to be precise in these regulations is part of a departmental attitude, the regulations will be back with us one day soon. Something else will pop up. Then whichever individuals are responsible for it — they may not stay with this department, they may move around — but like the guy in the Peanuts cartoon, the dust cloud will be with them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-323 — PRESENTATION OF PERSONS (2003) REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-385 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PRESENTATION OF PERSONS (CUSTOMS) REGULATIONS AND THE PRESENTATION OF PERSONS (2003) REGULATIONS

SOR/2006-154 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PRESENTATION OF PERSONS (2003) REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix H, p. 3H:1.)

Mr. Abel: After the committee's last consideration of this file, only two points from the original seven remained outstanding. The department's latest reply promises amendments to address point 3 of counsel's June 23, 2009 letter. This leaves only point 7, dealing with paragraph 11(d).

The department indicates that concerns relating to this provision, as well as previously promised amendments, will be dealt with as part of a regulatory review process. It is unclear whether the department agrees that there is a problem with redundancy in paragraph 11(d). Perhaps clarification can be sought in this regard. A further letter to the department can also seek a progress report on the review process and the promised amendments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Should there be a deadline for a progress report?

Mr. Szabo: On a comparative basis, they have not been too bad in responding to our correspondence, so I would keep good faith and ask only if we can tidy up a little further.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Other comments?

Senator Harb: I agree.

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-124 — PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix I, p. 3I:1.)

Mr. Abel: Some 33 concerns were raised in respect to these regulations. Amendments were promised in relation to points 1, 3, 4, 8 to 10, 13, 14, 17 to 20, 22 to 24, 26 to 30, 32 and 33.

In connection with points 14, 17, 22 and 29, however, explanations had been sought as to the intended effect of some provisions. Therefore, perhaps the specific amendments being proposed should be obtained.

It is suggested that satisfactory replies were provided to points 6 and 7. A substantive reply to point 15 has not yet been provided and this point also can be pursued.

On point 31, it is suggested that two satisfactory replies were provided, as well as a promised amendment, but two concerns raised under that point were not addressed. Those concerns also can be pursued again.

Finally, it is suggested that unsatisfactory replies were provided for the remaining six points, which were 2, 11 and 12, 16, 21 and 25. Point 2 requires a clarification of the regulations. Points 11 and 12 concern requirements that may affect the civil liability of registrants, which should be removed, and there is a drafting issue under point 12 as well. Points 16 and 21 address provisions that require removal or amendment respectively for vires reasons, and point 25 is a drafting issue.

I do not necessarily propose to go through these points individually, but if members wish, I can take about 10 minutes to do so or answer any questions there may be.

These points can be pursued further in another letter to the department, which can also seek clarifications mentioned earlier and a date for when the promised amendments are expected to be made.

Senator Harb: Do that.

Mr. Lee: This is one massive file. Even I had trouble working through it. However, all of the counsel that worked on it did a really good job.

Some of the difficulties with the regulations run the gamut from a missing comma to vires issues, so it is a file that continues with us. Whatever was proposed, I am in agreement with.

Mr. Szabo: I always look at the biggest file and try to understand why it is so thick. Not to make light of this file, is there a circumstance or a situation here where the quality of legislative drafting has come into question? Is this sloppy work on their behalf, and is it consequential to us and everyone else involved?

Mr. Bernhardt: Without slamming anyone necessarily, and with the preliminary point that this is a lengthy piece of regulation, sometimes we can have a huge number of issues in a one-sentence regulation, but generally speaking, a big package of regulations is likely to give rise to more issues. My only other comment is that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is one of our biggest customers.

Mr. Szabo: At some point, would it be appropriate to provide a little history to whomever is responsible and the person they report to, indicating that the legislative process can be improved substantively, and legislation can be enacted and effective if all aspects of the legislation, including the regulations, are handled with due care and diligence? I think someone has to be told about this situation.

Mr. Bernhardt: Probably back last summer, I met with people from the agency. They indicated to me at that time they were making concerted efforts to move forward on undertakings and try to speed up the process. It is perhaps a little too early in the game to say whether that effort will bear fruit. Hopefully it will.

Mr. Szabo: As we well know, once a regulation is put into legislation or has been promulgated, it is difficult to change it. Look at the Fisheries Act, and we had another example today.

Some of these things can have substantial consequences if they are not handled with due care in the first instance. I do not know what the review process is, or whatever. However, as you say, some legislation has reams of regulation requirements; for instance, in the reproductive technologies act, draft regulations were sent to a standing committee for review and comment.

Can we identify, or at least from our experience know whether this is a big client? Then maybe prior to them promulgating the regulations, we can have a pre-look of some sort? To undo the regulations may frustrate the intent of the legislation for years.

I do not have enough expertise on how this might happen, the mechanics, but maybe we can start off by indicating our concern to all the responsible parties or people who would share our concern to determine whether there may be a way collaboratively to mitigate this kind of a situation from occurring.

Mr. Bernhardt: We can convey that message.

Mr. Lee: To echo what Mr. Szabo said, these regulations look like they deal only with pest control products; but in reality, these regulations impact on a huge constituency of farmers and small business right across the country. These regulations will affect constituencies in which there are regular people, a distance away from Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, where they do not have a lawyer on the other end of the phone. We have the potential for regulatory cowboys imposing regulations that impact on these people.

I can see some of that potential buried in this file — the fact that it is so huge. Arguably, there has been some variance from the high standards we look for.

I encourage counsel to try to reduce this list of problems to the more serious ones, particular ones dealing with vires, and ensure that the classes of people I have mentioned are protected from regulatory overreach, and that the regulations are within the law.

The quicker we reach the short list, the better I will feel.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): I have a question for clarification, as I gain a sense of the important work of this committee. In this situation, where there is a lengthy list of concerns, Mr. Szabo articulated the question of whether the quality of the work that has been done in drafting these regulations is in question. I have heard that this committee is the last line of defence. I am also seeing the kind of editorial work that is done while counsel sifts through the reams of paper.

Some of you have the important institutional memory as well as experience on this committee. In terms of our role on such files, we provide a range of work, whether it is proofreading, editing and overseeing. Have there been other files with so many issues for review?

Mr. Szabo: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Martin): Are there regulations around the drafting in terms of process and quality control standards? Who regulates that part? These are general questions because this file is so big.

Mr. Bernhardt: All draft regulations are submitted to the Department of Justice for review. The process is referred to as blue stamping. That term likely goes back to the days when they had a blue ink pad and when they were finished at the Department of Justice, they put a stamp on each page. That process has to be completed before the regulation can be sent for making, registration and publication. I am not privy to how those discussions transpire between the regulation maker and the Department of Justice in a given instance. I expect there is a significant amount of give-and- take in terms of what a particular regulation maker wants in a regulation and wants to say in a regulation, how they want to say it and what the Department of Justice drafters or the reviewers feel should be there and how it should be done. The Department of Justice does not exercise a veto power. In theory, it has that power but it is my understanding that such power is rarely exercised. In fact, the Department of Justice will make suggestions and comments, and try to encourage certain things to be expressed in certain ways. However, at the end of the day, if a particular department insists on something else, in most cases that is probably what they will receive.

Mr. Szabo: Have we ever identified matters, either in this package or others, as Mr. Lee suggested, some of the more egregious problems, and raised them with the Department of Justice, which is the last line of defence before the regulation hits? We almost have to engage all the people who can contribute to the problem or perhaps it might help us to engage them to find a solution.

Mr. Bernhardt: There was a problem, I understand, in the early days of the committee. The difficulty was that in dealing with lawyers from the government, we quickly run up against the claim of solicitor-client privilege. It was for that reason that the DIO system was adopted, whereby the committee would have one contact person in each department that they could deal with. That system makes it simpler for the committee because it does not have to figure out who is in charge of each regulation in every department of the government.

However, the other idea was that in dealing with the departmental official, the client, that client could provide the information and a response. There was a time a few years ago when there was a difficulty, I believe, with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The person we were dealing with was the Department of Justice lawyer, and that person simply refused to make any comment, citing solicitor-client privilege.

That is always a difficulty when dealing with the Department of Justice on a formal level. We have informal contacts, and phone calls are made. We come to know some of the players but, as far as any formal response is concerned, we can obtain it on something general. For example, we had the letter earlier to the Chief Legislative Counsel because that item dealt with the general issue of a drafting practice. On a specific provision in a specific file, if we were to go to the Department of Justice, the department would refer us to the client and cite solicitor-client privilege.

Mr. Szabo: Can we invoke the powers of Parliament to call for persons, papers and records, and maybe have them appear?

Mr. Bernhardt: At the end of the day, the committee has always been hopeful that there are other ways to skin that particular cat.

Mr. Szabo: We were wise in that approach.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): Agreed.

SOR/2006-260 — PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS INCIDENT REPORTING REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix J, p. 3J:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Four points were pursued following the committee's consideration of this file. A promise to amend or a satisfactory explanation was provided in respect of each. After checking yesterday, I can advise the committee that the promised amendments have been made. They were made by SOR/2009-94. That instrument also completed the two other amendments on this file that were promised previously, so the file can be closed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-141 — ORDER 2006-87-04-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

(For text of document, see Appendix K, p. 3K:1.)

Mr. Abel: This order, among other things, deletes some substances from the domestic substances list but does not cite the relevant statutory authority for doing so. At its last consideration of this file, the committee dismissed the department's contention that such deletions were authorized by virtue of the Interpretation Act and instead, concluded that this order should have recited section 87(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The department's latest reply agrees that this conclusion has ``some merit'' and promises to consider this point seriously with a view to the future. If members do not find this reply sufficiently concrete, the department can be asked to confirm whether it agrees and, if not, to provide reasons. If members are satisfied, the file can be closed.

Mr. Lee: No chair, this is not a debating society and the department should know that. We need only a clear answer. Either they agree with us and will incorporate, or they do not agree and will not do so. That is all. The letter that we received was too unclear. It is all over the map. It says, ``we will seriously consider the point of view of the committee should we make a similar type of order in the future.''

Either the department accepts the view or does not accept it. If the department does not accept it, then we will decide what to do with it. This matter has to do with a matter that arose earlier on today's agenda. This matter is the recital of the authority for the regulatory initiative. I do not think we should walk from it. Rather, we should insist on clarity in their response. I appreciate the promptness of the response. We should firm up the reply with them on this item.

Senator Moore: Agreed.

Mr. Masse: The letter said that they continue to believe that the position expressed in their letter dated April 24 has merit. Maybe we can ask for an explanation of what has merit and what does not have merit.

Mr. Bernhardt: To be perfectly blunt, Mr. Masse, I read that wording as a bit of bureaucratic face saving. They are tacitly recognizing the point while trying to keep on some sort of fig leaf.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): We shall ask for explicit recognition. Agreed.

SOR/2001-132 — AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT AND REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix L, p. 3L:1.)

Mr. Abel: The department's letter of November 5, 2009, indicated that amendments to resolve all the committee's outstanding concerns on this file, which dates back to 2005, were expected in early 2010. Most of the amendments have been in the works since 2006, but they seem considerably closer to completion now than in the past. As of yesterday, they were not yet made, and a further update can be sought from the department.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-227 — MARIHUANA MEDICAL ACCESS REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix M, p. 3M:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: There were 18 promised amendments to these regulations that have already been made. The one outstanding matter discussed in the correspondence relates to section 41, paragraph (b.1). An amendment to that provision to solve the concerns has been promised. That amendment was delayed apparently as the result of a court challenge to the regulations. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused and, in November, the department reaffirmed its commitment to make the amendments. This being the case, the department can be asked if it can indicate when it expects this last amendment to be made.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-363 — ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix N, p. 3N:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: An amendment to the regulations is promised. The department indicated in October that the amendment should be completed in early 2010. It remains outstanding so a further update should be sought. As well, an amendment to the act was promised. The department advises that the amendment was not included in Bill C-16 in the last session, which made other amendments to the act, because the amendment was considered outside the scope of the bill. The department confirms its commitment to proceed with the amendment as soon as possible, so a progress report on that amendment can be sought.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/95-233 — SASKATCHEWAN FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1995

(For text of document, see Appendix O, p. 3O:1.)

Mr. Abel: This file has a long history of delays. The March 11, 2008, letter from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reassured the committee that amendments resolving its concerns would be forthcoming. Nothing was heard on the file until the October 5, 2009, letter from the department. The letter advises that amendments to the token close times for fishing may be ready shortly, although that issue is being dealt with under another file. An amendment to section 6(1) is apparently to be part of an omnibus package, although there is no indication when that might take place. As well, there is reference to the possibility of the passage of a new Fisheries Act, which will resolve this concern. Amendments to section 4(2) and section 4(3) remain the subject of consultations. An update on that process is promised. At this time, perhaps another letter can be drafted seeking firmer commitments from the department on the amendments to section 4 and section 6 of the regulations.

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-297 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix P, p. 3P:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: An amendment to resolve a discrepancy between two versions of one provision in the regulations was initially forecast for 2008-2009 when other amendments to the regulations were to be made. In October, the department indicated that the amendments were being drafted but their forecast time frame had been pushed back to 2010-2011. Given that the problem is relatively minor, I suppose that might be acceptable for the time being.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-190 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix Q, p. 3Q:1.)

SOR/2008-253 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (PERMANENT RESIDENTS)

(For text of document, see Appendix R, p. 3R:1.)

SOR/2008-254 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (CANADIAN EXPERIENCE CLASS)

(For text of document, see Appendix S, p. 3S:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: First, under Action Promised, there are seven amendments in total promised in connection with the three instruments listed. Progress of these amendments will be followed up in the usual fashion. As well, SOR/2008-253 made two amendments that were promised previously to the committee.

SOR/2009-290 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix T, p. 3T:1.)

SOR/2009-312 — ORDER AMENDING THE QUEBEC WOOD PRODUCERS' LEVIES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE) ORDER

(For text of document, see Appendix U, p. 3U:1.)

SOR/2009-335 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2009-141 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LETTER MAIL REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix V, p. 3V:1.)

SOR/2010-12 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix W, p. 3W:1.)

SOR/2010-39 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1437 — MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS FOR VETERINARY DRUGS)

(For text of document, see Appendix X, p. 3X:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: The six instruments under Action Taken total 14 amendments requested by the committee.

SOR/2009-177 — ORDER DESIGNATING NOVA SCOTIA FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL INTEREST RATE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

SOR/2009-180 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (GLAZED CERAMICS AND GLASSWARE) (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2009-184 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PRODUCERS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2009-192 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (RESIDENTIAL DETECTORS)

SOR/2009-195 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SHIPS' STORES REGULATIONS (2009)

SOR/2009-196 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-198 — CEFTA RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-199 — CEFTA RULES OF ORIGIN FOR CASUAL GOODS REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-202 — PROCLAMATION EXEMPTING THE WATERS OF SANDY POND FROM THE OPERATION OF SECTION 22 OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

SOR/2009-203 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (WILLIAMS LAKE)

SOR/2009-205 — ORDER AMENDING THE APPROVED BREATH ANALYSIS INSTRUMENTS ORDER

SOR/2009-206 — ORDER 2009-87-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2009-207 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (MEXICO)

SOR/2009-208 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (CZECH REPUBLIC)

SOR/2009-210 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-224 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PACIFIC PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-226 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-227 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE AND DETERMINING THE COMPOSITION, DIMENSIONS AND DESIGNS OF A TWENTY-FIVE CENT CIRCULATION COIN

SOR/2009-229 — ORDER AMENDING THE CCRFTA SUGAR AGGREGATE QUANTITY LIMIT REMISSION ORDER

SOR/2009-230 — ORDER REPEALING CERTAIN ORDERS MADE UNDER THE CUSTOMS TARIFF (PAPER BURDEN REDUCTION INITIATIVE)

SOR/2009-239 — ORDER AMENDING THE APPROVED SCREENING DEVICES ORDER

SOR/2009-240 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I.1 TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SOR/2009-241 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE IV TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SOR/2009-242 — ORDER AMENDING PART II OF SCHEDULE VI TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SOR/2009-243 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

SOR/2009-244 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE PRIVACY ACT

SOR/2009-245 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I.1 TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SOR/2009-246 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE IV TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SOR/2009-247 — ORDER AMENDING PART II OF SCHEDULE VI TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

Mr. Bernhardt: A total of 29 instruments have been reviewed by counsel and found to comply with all the committee's criteria.

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

Mr. Albrecht: I have an administrative question. In the future, can my office receive two copies of the relevant meeting material? My staff often has the package, and we have to exchange back and forth. I promise to recycle them.

Mr. Lee: Our agenda tends to take up about half a tree per copy.

Mr. Albrecht: Sometimes, I have a half hour to look at the package but it is with my staff at the office and not with me.

Mr. Lee: Do you make your staff read all of these materials?

Mr. Albrecht: Absolutely.

Mr. Bernhardt: I can vouch for that because I receive the occasional phone call.

Mr. Lee: Let the record show my open mouth and my jaw dropped.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Kania): The next meeting is May 13. Thank you.

(The committee adjourned.)

---