---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 18 - Evidence - December 6, 2012

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, December 6, 2012

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

Senator Bob Runciman and Ms. Chris Charlton (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

SOR/2005-293 — BASIN HEAD MARINE PROTECTED AREA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 18A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Good morning. The first item on the agenda under "Letters to and from Ministers'' is on marine regulations. This has been before the committee for a number of years and relates to the use of the phrase "as amended from time to time.'' The minister has agreed to amend the regulations to ensure consistency.

Do you have anything to add, counsel?

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: I do not, Mr. Chair, except to say that the minister has made an undertaking to make that amendment, and we will monitor the progress.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are members agreed with that approach?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-143 — VETERINARY DRUG EVALUATION FEES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 18B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The next item is under "Reply Unsatisfactory'' and concerns drug evaluation fees.

Mr. Bernhardt: There is a base fee of $15,980. However, the regulations also provide for a reduction for drugs with low sales volume based on the revenues from the drug sales. In essence, the applicant pays 10 per cent of sales revenue or the amount of the fee that is prescribed, whichever is less. The result is that two people could pay a different charge for the same service, depending on their revenues. The committee previously came to the conclusion that these charges constitute a tax, not a fee or levy, as authorized under the Financial Administration Act.

As in similar cases, the committee based its position on the Supreme Court's decision in Eurig, more specifically the so-called "other factor,'' which members will probably be familiar with by now. The other factor is where you have a fee for a service and where there must be a connection between the amount charged and the cost of the service provided. Given that the court had already considered in Eurig the fact that the total revenues exceeded the total cost of providing the service, it would seem to follow that when the court talked about this other factor, they were looking at a relationship between the differences in amounts charged to different persons and the costs of providing the services to those persons in individual situations.

The department has tried to justify the fee reduction as taking into account a number of considerations. They have referred to innovation, market penetration by small players, access to drugs, including what they refer to as "orphan drugs,'' and healthy competition. It is not clear what this has to do with the power to set prices for a service. It could be thought that economic policies are being hidden here under the guise of a simple government levy. Aside from any question of illegal taxes, it might be thought questionable whether Parliament, by delegating a power to set a fee, meant for these sorts of factors to be taken into account.

Previously, the department proposed replacing the fee reduction with a remission order to apply to veterinary drugs with low sales volume. This is raised again in the latest correspondence. The committee already found this solution to be unacceptable because it does indirectly what cannot be done directly, i.e. impose a tax disguised as a fee.

As the court pointed out in Eurig, the Constitution establishes a principle that a taxing power must be exercised by Parliament or, pursuant to a regulatory power, be expressly delegated by it. Parliament obviously did not confer a remission power to be used to circumvent the Constitution.

On November 1, the committee voted to close a file on fees to be paid for marine navigation services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. In that file, the issue raised was also whether charges imposed for rendering a service constituted an illegal tax in light of Eurig. In brief, the argument advanced was that if Parliament wanted all those using services to pay the same amount, it would have fixed that amount in the act.

The question is whether the committee wishes to conclude that the same argument, which was accepted in the case of the marine navigation services fees, is applicable in this instance.

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

Mr. Albas: I appreciate counsel's position. The committee had a discussion regarding the marine file and made the decision to move away from that. I have some strong views on the argument, but in an effort to preserve the committee's time, we should be consistent with our previous direction and inform counsel to close the file. That being said, if we want to discuss the actual merits of the individual argument, I am more than game, but I will not take up the committee's valuable time if we have already made the decision to continue in the same direction.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there further comments? We have a recommendation from Mr. Albas.

Senator Moore: Where does this fit in terms of our past position that went to court and they were successful in, were they not? That file was in respect of the definitions of "fee'' and "tax.'' What happens if we simply put this aside? Are we consistent with that court decision and our position at the time?

Mr. Bernhardt: The decision on November 1 on the other file was basically to reverse the committee's position and to close the file. This file concerns a similar issue, so closing it would be consistent with the decision taken on November 1. However, it would reverse the committee's position taken on this file previously and on other files related to fees and taxes.

Senator Moore: Will we walk away from our previous position? The court thought we were right. I believe it was with regard to the CRTC overcharging a certain level of broadcast fees?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, it was about broadcast licence fees.

Senator Moore: The court said we were right.

Mr. Bernhardt: The trial court said that the committee was right; but the Court of Appeal took a different view. It was heading to the Supreme Court, and eventually the parties settled with the upshot that the regulation was changed in a way that was acceptable to the committee.

Senator Moore: The regulation was changed to our satisfaction.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Senator Moore: With regard to the November decision and this one today, will they be consistent with the position enunciated in the changed regulation?

Mr. Bernhardt: No. The decision taken on November 1 was a reversal of the committee's view. The question this morning is whether the committee wishes to be consistent with the decision taken on November 1.

Senator Moore: Where does that decision fit with regard to the regulation that was changed to satisfy the committee?

Mr. Bernhardt: It would reflect a different position.

Senator Moore: After all that work, I will not support that.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I remember well when the CRTC file was started under a Liberal government, so do not put any label on it. What is right in law is right in law, and when it is not, it is not. It is an indirect way of taxing people for services that are not equivalent to the cost for those using the services.

If we agree to that, it means that we allow any department to decide that they have a shortfall in the budget, but they will increase their fee. It does not make sense. That is an indirect tax. That is why I say it is a fee. It must be in compliance with what it costs. There is a decision in law, and it is not because there was a settlement that was probably finalizing a case before taking 10 years. However, I feel that we should stick to the basic principle that a fee is a fee and a tax is a tax. If you want to tax, you tax.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I am not sure it is worthwhile to revisit the complete debate. We had this and we had a motion that I gather is relatively unusual in this committee. If we require a motion again, we will go down that road, but I am not sure if it is healthy or a productive use of our time to spend another half an hour on the same issue that we debated extensively. Mr. Albas?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: We cannot put our —

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Mr. Albas has the floor.

Mr. Albas: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hear what the senator is saying. A fee should be a fee and a tax should be a tax. I try to take the perspective of looking at the file from its merits. In this particular case, everyone is assessed a certain fee for what it costs to be able to go through the processes required for a veterinarian drug to become available in Canada.

I believe it is in the public interest that those veterinarian drugs that receive less revenue receive a subsidy — in this case — that allows for a wider variety of medicines for animals to be made available to the Canadian public. The user fee is set at what it costs to run the service. However, a subsidy is then applied, and that encourages innovation. That encourages more market choice. In this particular case, I think it is perfectly relevant for us to say that another factor does not completely apply. That being said, I respect what the senator has said. I will keep my comments brief and encourage us that being consistent with the direction that we have said gives consistency so counsel can continue to work. However, I have no problem looking at each case and its merits case by case.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Unless we have accountants and people coming before us, we have to set the principles. How it is fair to say that this medication costs more, but we would like them to have access so we will charge less? It is not the role of Scrutiny of Regulations to find out the merit of this exercise. I would need more clarification.

Perhaps you have information that I do not have, but as far as I am concerned — not even that is enough for me — we have to say that it is going to have research included in that. I have no problem with the word "research,'' providing that we have the evidence.

Right now, we are going far beyond our role. It is not in line with the principle that when you set a fee, it has to be equal to the service you receive. In this case, no matter how large a merit it is that our cats, dogs and all the other animals will be well treated and with proper medication, I just think we should stick to the principle that we have.

I would suggest we review that, but not taking into account the cost of the electricity of the department and so on. We have to stick to what the principle of a fee is all about. What are the components of the fee? We can ask the government to give us the breakdown so that we can be sure that we are dealing with a fee and not a tax.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there any additional comments?

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I agree with Mr. Albas, because this situation can be likened to that of tuition fees. It is not a tax, but a fee for tuition. On the basis of their income, students are subsidized, they receive loans and grants. In turn, they pay less tuition according to their income. And you can compare that approach to this one. That is my comment.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We have a suggestion on the floor from Mr. Albas that some members disagree with. I am not sure where we go with this. Do we require a motion?

Senator, are you feeling strongly enough?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think Mr. Albas would agree that we should get more information about this to see how we can make the differentiation between the fee and the tax. I want to know all the components that enter into that fee. I know by the argument of the university fee, for the simple reason that we are not dealing with the fee for service, because we know very well it does not cover at all the costs. In Quebec, it costs about 10 per cent of what it costs and in other provinces it is 20 per cent, so it is not the same throughout the country.

In this case, I think we could have more information so that we can make a decision. If I am convinced that it is a fee, I will support it and vote for it.

Mr. Albas: I appreciate the senator's comments. However, I feel that counsel has given us very good briefs as far as the costs. What it costs for such processes to be done has already been given to us, from the government's perspective. I appreciate the need for more information, but I am very comfortable with what counsel has put together for us.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I guess if we cannot reach an accommodation, I will have to look for a motion to close the file. So moved?

Mr. Albas: Yes, so moved.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there any further discussion?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am against this motion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I understand that.

Senator Moore: This is ridiculous; it is crazy.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): All those in favour of the motion of Mr. Albas to close the file? Opposed? Carried.

Senator Moore: Did you do a count?

Marcy Zlotnick, Joint Clerk of the Committee: I think he might be asking for a voice count.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Well, it is a little late to be asking for —

Senator Moore: You did not look around do a count; you just said "carried.'' Nobody did.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I did a clear count, senator.

Senator Moore: Of what?

SI/2009-102 — ORDER FIXING THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 18C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): This item is an order fixing the date of the coming into force of certain sections of the act. This order was issued under subsection 24(2) of An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: The amending act provides that the sections in question come into force on a day to be fixed by the Governor-in-Council. In this case, the order states that it is fixing the first day on which both of two international agreements are in force in Canada as the day on which the amendments to the act come into force. When the order was made, Canada had not yet ratified the agreements and it was therefore impossible to know when they would come into force in Canada. Consequently, it was also impossible to say when the provisions of the act in question would come into force. As a result, the committee has concluded that the order did not fix the date of coming into force of these sections.

The department, of course, maintains that the order fixed this date. Back on March 29, 2012, the committee concluded that the department's response was unsatisfactory, and the department was asked to reconsider the matter. This led to a further exchange of letters culminating in the department's September 19 reply.

The department is arguing that focusing on the term "fix'' does not allow the words of the act, as it puts it, to "be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.'' The department is also of the opinion that the authority to provide for a date to be fixed by an order is not the same as providing for a date to be fixed in an order.

I suggest this seems to be trying to create a distinction where none exists. For example, is it possible to argue that there is a distinction between communicating something by a letter or in a letter? I suggest it comes to the same thing.

The department also writes that the spirit and intent of the law requires the changes to the Marine Liability Act to come into force in Canada, and it is Canada's obligation under the terms of the convention and the protocol. The committee never said otherwise. The only question is whether the order complies with the amending act. If not, then the amendments made by Parliament are not in force.

I would suggest that not much in the correspondence exchanged since the committee last saw this file back on March 29 would lead the committee to change its position that the order is invalid. If members concur with that assessment, the question then is how the committee would want to pursue the file.

Mr. Albas: I believe we spoke to this last year, and there are over 18 different countries that had signed on to this agreement; is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: I imagine. I believe so.

Mr. Albas: A big part of that particular agreement was specifically that a number of other countries still had to ratify, and it was not until there was a certain number of the participants in the agreement that it would actually come into force.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is right.

Mr. Albas: Again, that makes it extremely difficult for anyone to foresee when a date could be specified.

I am very much satisfied with the response that has come back from the government. Is closing the file an option?

Mr. Bernhardt: Closing the file is always an option. When Parliament said that the order should fix a date, I think the approach that could have been taken would have been to wait until the convention had been ratified — that it had come into force, that Canada's obligation arose — and then make the order fixing the date.

Probably for reasons of demonstrating Canada's commitment to the convention, they tried to fix the order in advance perhaps as a way to encourage other people to ratify, which is all well and good from a public policy point of view. However, the shoal the ship crashes on is that the act says you are to fix a date.

The question for the committee is simply whether providing for some uncertain future date when two other things have happened is fixing a date.

Mr. Albas: We have had a number of meetings where we have discussed this particular issue.

Mr. Bernhardt: It is something that does come up from time to time.

Mr. Albas: From time to time, yes.

Mr. Bernhardt: I think there was the example the department brought about a meeting in a restaurant when the Senators next make the playoffs or something, and whether that fixed a day. The committee was not convinced in that case that such a thing fixed a date.

Mr. Albas: Therefore, the real rub of the situation is that we need a certain number of other countries to ratify their participation in what I would say would be a good measure, internationally. I am not asking for your opinion on that part of it.

One of the challenges is that we do not know when that date would be. However, it is important to be able to say that, when a certain number of members of that agreement ratify, it comes into force. I think the question is whether the government has chosen what, to me, seems to be a sensible thing, which is to say that when it comes into force internationally, it comes into force here in Canada. Is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: I would simply add that whether it is sensible is not necessarily the question for the committee. I think you have answered your own question when you say they did not know when that date would be, and I think that is the key here. At the time they made the order, they did not know when that date would be, and the order does not tell you when the date would be.

The question is this: Is the date fixed?

Mr. Albas: Okay, but it is fixed by another event that happens. For example, the race will begin when the gun fires. Again, I am wondering how much time we will spend on something with a lot of moving pieces. I do not see the value of continually going back on something that we have no knowledge about; namely, when this international agreement will be ratified by the majority of the participants. To me, that is an issue.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I wonder if in the past for issues like this, where we go back and forth, if we simply cannot say that we disagree and continue to hold that position. Is there any point? How many times have we entered into this kind of a discussion — quite a few times?

There is a point in time, I suppose, where you are just knocking heads; the committee is not changing its position. However, to consistently return to the arm of government to simply state this is their position — we continue to maintain it going forward. What has the committee done in the past?

Mr. Bernhardt: Traditionally, I suppose the committee at that point has considered whether to report the matter to the houses. It has been in the past one way for the committee to conclude its dealings with a file. Like any other committee, it can simply go on the record as saying, "This is the view of the committee. Unfortunately, it has not been able to successfully convince the department of that view. This remains the committee's position.''

Senator Harb: I just want to point out something. I have been sitting on this committee now for 22 or 23 years on and off. For my colleagues who joined the committee at a little later date, we have a situation here where we start with the premise that Parliament is supreme. We have a division of power with the executive representing the Crown and Parliament representing the people.

Whenever Parliament makes a decision and passes a law, the Crown has to comply with that decision; it must not only comply with the law but also comply with the regulations that would bring into force the law. That position should never change. It does not matter how small or big the issue is. The minute we start as members of Parliament to stray away from that, not only do we put ourselves in a very difficult moral dilemma and a conflict, but also we will not be doing our job.

Unless a member of Parliament is a minister, he has a duty and a responsibility to exercise his role as a legislative member of Parliament. Therefore, he has to take the position of Parliament on issues that Parliament has dealt with, notwithstanding how big or small the matter is.

I know that we have been going down a bit of a slippery slope. We never voted in this committee until recently, and I hope we will revert to what this committee was doing all along for many years, since its conception: to defend what is in the Constitution; namely, the parliamentary right to supremacy. Unless the Constitution is changed and unless the role of Parliament has been redefined, I think this committee has to play its non-partisan role as a consistent defender of the rules and rights of Parliament.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Thank you for that.

Mr. Albas: Thank you, senator, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. I certainly appreciate that.

This is an order that has been given out by Governor-in-Council, I believe, and that particular authority has been delegated to them by Parliament. You or I might disagree or agree with an individual order, but I think the joint chair brought up whether this is just a question of disagreement.

There are many things we can do. However, I would make the suggestion moving forward that we write to both the minister responsible for this file and to the Minister of Justice and point out that we do not agree with this particular piece. However, I do also believe that there is a point, as the good senator said, that we stop knocking heads and simply register our issue and move on to other matters that are more germane to the responsibilities that you spoke of.

I would suggest we write to both ministers, list that we do not believe that this is the way that the order should be affixed — continuing with the position — but close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there further discussion? We have a suggestion.

Senator Harb: I would not close the file. In fact, I would go to Parliament because we have a duty and a responsibility to report to Parliament whenever we feel and believe that a decision made by Parliament was not followed through by the Crown.

Senator Moore: Yes, we have to do that.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: Pardon my ignorance, but it seems to me that when you issue an order without a date, what do you actually have, smoke? Legislation applies not only to a physical setting, a country or an area of land, but also to a temporal context. So without any date, it means nothing.

If decisions need to be made, it is up to the legislative branch to make them. We cannot close this; we have to pursue it. Things are too vague.

If the decision is up to Parliament, then Parliament will decide. We cannot say we are closing the file because it is no big deal that we do not have a date. Yes it is a big deal because Canada reached compromises at the international level, but without a date, there are no compromises at the end of the day.

[English]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: A middle-ground solution could be to write the letter, as my colleague suggests, and leave the file open. In the letter, we can state that we need to be informed when the ratification will take place. Then, we will comply with that date. To suggest that we sweep it under the carpet because we do not have the date is not consistent with the role of this committee. Write the letter and stand the file. The letter will mention that we would like to be informed when the ratification is completed and that the government is bound by its regulation; and then fix the date at that time. I believe that my colleague would agree. By doing it that way, the committee will appear to be doing its job.

Mr. Albas: I have nothing further to say.

Senator Braley: Do I understand that we will write to the minister and ask him to reply?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): That is an option, but Mr. Albas' suggestion is that after we write the letter and close the file.

Mr. Albas, are you changing your position on that?

Mr. Albas: I am only one member of the committee. I tend to think that I will not be the tail that wags the dog. I am happy to do what the committee is happy to do. I recognize the reality of international agreements. I am sure that many members would agree that this particular agreement is necessary. They may disagree with how the order was placed, but when the treaty is ratified by the majority of the people, it will come into force immediately; and there is no way of knowing when that date will be. It is not in the public's interest for us to continue pursuing something when we can simply register our complaint. I do not see any additional benefit to continuing down this path.

Mr. Saxton: We have consensus on writing the minister, so I recommend we do that and then defer the decision as to whether we close the file at a later date.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Do we have consensus?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-199 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI, VII AND VIII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 18D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Part Action Promised'' we have the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Six points were raised by counsel with Transport Canada. The department has corrected one of them, has promised action on two more and has provided explanations for the other points.

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: Amendments have been promised to address five of the six points. I believe that the chair referred to the fifth point, for which the answer is satisfactory. On the other points, a letter could be drafted seeking a time frame for the promised amendments.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-191 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF (HARMONIZED SYSTEM CONVERSION, 2012)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 18E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 5 on our agenda is SOR/2011-191.

Mr. Bernhardt: It looks like either promises of action or satisfactory explanations are provided on all points with the possible exception of the final one. The issue was with some drafting deficiencies noted in the French version of the Customs Tariff. The department has agreed that while these terms are negotiated internationally through the World Trade Organization, there is, nevertheless, a principle that drafting should meet Canadian drafting conventions. The department offered no insight as to any potential remedies that might be available.

In the initial letter, the question was asked whether these matters could be raised in the next review of the harmonized system. Since I suppose a request for a progress report will be in order, perhaps that suggestion could be made again at the same time.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-62 — ORDER 2011-87-12-02 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 18F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next, we have an order amending the Domestic Substances List, which deals with a grammatical error. It also raised the question of proper enabling authority.

Mr. Abel: An amendment is promised to address a grammatical error, which was identified in counsel's letter of May 18. In addition, as members may recall, the department and the committee recently reached concurrence on which statutory authority should be cited for certain types of deletions from the Domestic Substances List, and this is referred to in counsel's May 18 letter. In this case, no authority was cited in the recommendation preceding the order for the deletion of the substance. The department has acknowledged that oversight.

At this time, given that orders are made fairly regularly to the Domestic Substances List, counsel could simply monitor the file for the promised amendment.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-262 — COST OF BORROWING (AUTHORIZED FOREIGN BANKS) REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-263 — COST OF BORROWING (RETAIL ASSOCIATIONS) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 18G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Two items appear under "Part Action Taken.''

Mr. Abel: The first point raised on these files identified the citation of an irrelevant statutory provision as an enabling provision in the recommendations preceding both instruments. That error has been acknowledged, and no corrective measures are needed.

The second point questioned whether the term "high ratio mortgage'' should be defined. The department indicates that this is a term of art that is well understood within the financial industries. If that explanation is satisfactory, no action would need to be taken.

All of the remaining drafting concerns have been resolved by amendments made by SOR/2009-259 and SOR/2009- 261. If all of that is satisfactory, both files can be closed.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-218 — POLYBROMINATED DIPHENYL ETHERS REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix H, p. 18H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Reply Satisfactory'' is SOR/2008-218.

Mr. Bernhardt: These regulations are stated to apply to certain resins, polymers or other mixtures containing specified polybrominated diphenyl ethers, which are chemical flame retardants. The enabling provision in the Environmental Protection Act does not refer to mixtures. That gave rise to the question of whether extending the prohibition to mixtures containing the substance was extending the act. However, the EPA refers to products containing a prohibited substance. The department explained that they are referencing a class of products that are mixtures of substances containing the prohibited substance, which seems to be a reasonable explanation. If that is the case, we will close the file.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-785 — RETIREMENT COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS REGULATIONS, NO. 1

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 18I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Reply Satisfactory (?)'' we have the Retirement Compensation Arrangements Regulations, No. 1. This item has been before the committee since 2009.

Mr. Bernhardt: One issue remains on this file and concerns the validity of subsection 12(2) of the regulations, which provides for withholding pension benefits in order to recover unpaid contributions. In 2010, in light of the committee's concerns, the President of Treasury Board committed to no longer using subsection 12(2) and to obtaining clear authorization from Parliament to include a provision to this effect in the regulations. That authority was obtained with the passage of the 2011 budget implementation bill.

The committee then suggested that subsection 12(2) of the regulation should be remade under the new enabling power because amending the enabling legislation had no impact on existing regulations. In other words, the amendment to the act did not retroactively validate subsection 12(2). The response from Treasury Board was that it did not consider it necessary to remake the provision. However, when making amendments by the instrument registered as SOR/2012-114, the provision in question was partially remade.

The note prepared for members this morning sets out in full the before and after versions. The question for the committee is whether it views this partial amendment as sufficient. Clearly, it would have been preferable to simply remake the whole provision.

However, the part of the provision that was amended applies directly to the part that gave rise to the committee's problem in the first place. It states, in the circumstances set out now, that amounts shall be deducted from the sources specified. With that in mind, the committee could decide that the amendment appears to protect the validity of subsection 12(2). I suppose in a nutshell, even if the amendment was not intended to address the committee's remaining concern, it can be read as having that incidental effect. It is not quite what the committee sought, but it may come to the same thing. If members are satisfied that it does, then we could close this file.

Mr. Saxton: Based on what counsel has discussed this morning, I think that the committee's concerns have been addressed, and I therefore recommend we close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there any further comments? Are we all in agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 18J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): This item has been before the committee since 2007, and two draft issues remain outstanding.

Mr. Abel: The first issue relates to a purpose statement provision that the committee determined serves no legal effect and should be removed. The department continues to contend that this provision is helpful and therefore should be detained, and cites a decision of the Federal Court in its support.

The excerpt set out in the department's letter cannot be construed as showing that this provision serves a necessary purpose. Rather, the court's comments only demonstrate that the information provided in this purpose provision is also available in the regulatory impact analysis statement accompanying the instrument.

The second issue raised on this file concerns the use and meaning of several related terms in the regulations. The department seems to be open to clarifying these terms. It was previously indicated that this section would be reviewed once related litigation had been completed, after which the committee's concerns would be considered. Although that litigation finished, the department then expressed a desire to wait until negotiations concerning the European Union free trade agreement were completed. Those negotiations will probably conclude soon. Given the significant delays in obtaining even a clear commitment to address the committee's concerns on this file, I suppose the question is how members wish to proceed.

Mr. Anders: Since the department has expressed an intention to review the particular section, including section 2, once the free trade agreement negotiations with the European Union are complete — hopefully this year but certainly we hope not long thereafter — it probably makes sense to write back in the new year and ask for an update based on those negotiations.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there any further comments?

Mr. Anders is suggesting a letter. Is there agreement with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-347 — 2-BUTOXYETHANOL REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K p. 18K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to this item, I courageously go where no chair has gone before in trying to pronounce 2-Butoxyethanol Regulations. We are dealing with French and English discrepancies, so over to counsel.

Mr. Abel: At its previous consideration of this file, members determined that the word "viable'' in the French version of paragraph 5(1)(a) and section 3 of Schedule 2 should be replaced with "possible'' in order to reflect wording used in the enabling act. Subsequently, counsel reviewed the proposed amendments to the regulations and noted that "viable'' was to be replaced with "en mesure'' and inquired as to why. The department's response suggests that the wording of the act is not binding as the word "possible'' was used in a different context there, but the reply does not explain what that context might be. It was also suggested that the words "en mesure'' provide a more fluid reading of the provision and that "possible'' would require the use of the passive voice. However, there is no reason that the provision cannot be reformulated to avoid the passive voice.

Finally, the department suggests that the grammatical meaning of the "en mesure'' should not create any potential confusion. This does seem accurate. There is no ambiguity that should be introduced by the use of that term. Given the department's apparently strong preference for this alternative wording, members may perhaps be satisfied with that approach. In any case, a letter could be drafted at least seeking an expected time frame for the making of all the promised amendments on this file.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any comments? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 18L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): On this item, action has been promised with respect to eight provisions, but questions remain with respect to the issue of grandparenting.

Mr. Bernhardt: A clarification had been sought in connection with the grandfathering provisions included in these amendments, largely because of their complexity.

The amendments generally replace the requirement for 20 years regular force service in order to be eligible to receive an immediate unreduced annuity with a requirement for 25 years regular force service. It appeared from reading the relevant provisions that members of the regular force who had less than 10 years regular force pensionable service on March 1, 2007, are not eligible to elect to go under the old regime and therefore must now complete 25 years of regular force pensionable service in order for eligibility for an immediate unreduced annuity. We got a series of rather evasive responses provided by the department. It repeatedly explained who is included in the grandfathering provisions. There seemed to be a reluctance to expressly address the question of who is not included.

The last letter from the department dated July 30 notes that those who were members of the regular force on March 1, 2007, are entitled to be grandfathered if the circumstances, when they release, meet the former provisions of the act that would have generated an immediate annuity entitlement. Conversely, those whose situation at release is not one of those which would have entitled them to an immediate annuity under the former provisions are not entitled to be grandfathered.

Having tried to make sense of all this, there are a number of circumstances giving rise to entitlement to an immediate annuity under the act as it formerly read. In no case, however, did such an entitlement accrue to any member having less than 10 years service. Therefore, it would follow that those who were members of the regular force on March 1, 2010, and who at that time had less than 10 years service were not entitled to an immediate annuity and therefore not entitled to be grandfathered.

This is consistent with the committee's reading of the relevant provisions, and is reflected in the chart that was issued by the department. For reasons unknown, the department is simply unwilling to confirm whether this is correct or not correct. On the other hand, the committee seems to have sufficient information now to piece this together by inference and by extension. It would seem to be the case that the reading the committee has been putting on this is, in fact, correct.

That being the case, I guess the regulations say what they are supposed to say or what they are meant to say. The committee could decide it did not need to get any deeper into this particular quagmire. If that is the case, it would simply be a matter of following up on the amendments that have already been promised.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I reviewed the diagram, and perhaps it is clear to counsel. But were I a member of the military and I wanted to know what I was entitled to in terms of payment, I would have a lot of trouble figuring it out. What needs to be clarified is what this does or does not entitle people to, as far as payment goes.

This is quite a significant entitlement. My question is whether this system will enable people to understand what they are eligible for, figure it out for themselves and know that the decision they are making is in their best interests.

I am not sure whether counsel has a good understanding of the diagram we have here. The system seems obscure and very complex to me. In fact, I do not know how someone could assert their rights under such a system. What is the answer? We have to see to it that future recipients can access the benefits to which they are entitled and can make an informed decision.

From the correspondence received from the department, are you convinced that the regulations will allow retiring members of the military to fully understand what they are entitled to and to access it? I live with someone who has been in the military for 20 years and I could not even explain to him how this decision or that decision would affect him. Do you have a solution that would make things clear for members of the military?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: We have been seeking a clear statement and it has been difficult to obtain. The chart here is the summary.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, I know.

Mr. Bernhardt: When we looked at the regulations, you can imagine trying to express all of this in sentences. We eventually found this on the department's website. We then had the regulations.

As I say, the question was basically confirmed. We thought we had finally understood what it was trying to say, and we simply asked, "Is this correct? Are these people not covered?'' If so, that is fine; I mean, those are the grandfathering provisions. We got back a series of explanations of who was covered: "These people are covered; these people are covered; these people are covered.'' We kept writing back to say, "That is good, but who is not covered?'' They seemed reluctant to state that.

I think we have sort of pieced it together now. As to whether a member of the Forces in his particular circumstances will be able to wade through this, I cannot say. I suppose at some point they will have to rely on the expertise of the pension people in DND to walk them through it.

It is very complicated. I am not sure how much more simple it could be made. In a sense, I think we have come to the conclusion that the regulation says what it is intended to say. More than that, I could not attest to.

Mr. Saxton: The department has committed to make the amendments requested by the committee. I think they said by fiscal year end, so let us continue to monitor it to ensure those amendments are done.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-254 — PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEMEN FOR ASSISTED CONCEPTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2000-299 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEMEN FOR ASSISTED CONCEPTION REGULATIONS (1218 — ALTERNATIVE TESTS)

SOR/2000-410 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEMEN FOR ASSISTED CONCEPTION REGULATIONS (1238 — SPECIAL ACCESS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 18M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): These items deal with regulations relating to the processing and distribution of semen for assisted conception regulations.

We still have no timeline for the amendments to the act or the adoption of new regulations, so we may want to ask for clarification.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The committee has concluded that all of these regulations are illegal. They were made under the Food and Drugs Act based on the view that human sperm used or intended for assisted reproduction is a drug under the Food and Drugs Act. The committee does not agree with that characterization and has taken a view that these regulations should be made under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

There was a Supreme Court challenge to that act, and the department was reluctant to take any action until that had all been settled. After that, then, as a result of the Supreme Court striking down large parts of that later act, there were amendments to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act in the last budget omnibus bill. The department has advised that once those amendments come into force, it will remake the regulations under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Those amendments, as I say, have received Royal Assent. They are not yet in force, so perhaps we could ask if there is an anticipated time for that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Do members agree?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 18N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under both of these items, action has now been promised in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

Mr. Abel: That is correct, Madam Chair. One other thing I would note for members' benefit is that the committee previously determined that substantial aspects of these regulations are not properly authorized under the Fish Inspection Act.

Bill S-11 received Royal Assent recently on November 22. This bill will repeal the Fish Inspection Act and replace it with a broader food inspection act under which new regulations would presumably be made. Bill S-11 comes into force on a date specified by order of the Governor-in-Council, and that order has not yet been made.

At this point, a letter seems warranted — one not only seeking a progress report on the promised amendments but also an indication as to when it is expected Bill S-11 will come into force.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-324 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ESQUIMALT GRAVING DOCK REGULATIONS, 1989

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 18O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Regarding this item, draft wording has been received from the Department of Justice Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada is now initiating the process.

Mr. Abel: That is correct, Madam Chair. I would suggest at this point, we write back to the department seeking a progress update.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-205 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 18P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): There was an amendment that was expected to come into force this year. We are getting now to the end of this year.

Mr. Abel: That is true. I can inform the committee that a letter was received just yesterday indicating that the agency still expects to complete these this year.

In connection with the promised amendment to paragraph 29.2(2)(b), counsel's April 30 letter sought further details also as to the substance of the proposed amendment. No reply was received in that regard.

At this time, perhaps a further letter could be drafted seeking those details.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-128 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 18Q:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): The next item on our agenda falls under the heading "Progress (?).'' We are still waiting for an indication of when a substantive draft regulatory amendment will be forthcoming.

Mr. Abel: The department plans to include the drafting amendment with more substantive amendments, but they cannot indicate when those will be forthcoming. I would suggest a letter could perhaps be drafted indicating that if this larger amendment package cannot be completed within a reasonable time frame, the committee might expect the corrective amendment to precede the package independently.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-363 — ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 18R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is an item under "Action Promised (?).'' The department is now promising targeted regulatory reform in 2013-14.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct, Madam Chair. I suppose I should give the reason for the question mark here. By way of background, there are a number of provisions in these regulations that put obligations on permit holders outside the emergency plans they are required to submit, and they also put obligations on people who do not hold permits. Unfortunately, the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act simply provides that the minister can issue a permit authorizing persons on a Canadian expedition or authorizing a Canadian vessel or aircraft to be in the Antarctic if they have a waste management plan in place. The Governor-in-Council can then make regulations respecting waste management plans. How this is thought to permit regulations governing people outside the plans or people who do not have permits is a bit of a mystery.

The department has indicated it will make the amendments, but it refers to amending the act "if necessary'' to regulate non-permit holders and putting obligations on permit applicants.

The committee in the past has had some difficulty in making the nature of the problem understandable to the department. Given those references, I still have some unease as to whether the department even yet grasps the problem.

That being the case, it might be an idea to write back and ask for some specifics as to the exact amendments they plan, just to satisfy the committee that, in fact, they will address the problem when they are made. I should add there was one attempt made in 2010 to amend the regulations to address the committee's concern, and it failed to do so. We probably would not want to go through that a second time.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-247 — NEW SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION REGULATIONS (CHEMICALS AND POLYMERS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 18S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): The first of two items under "Action Promised'' is SOR/2005-247. The department is promising to correct a discrepancy pointed out by counsel, and it will clarify the wording of a second subsection as well, although once again no timeline was given.

Mr. Abel: That is correct, Madam Chair.

I would draw the attention of members to the first point concerning subsection 8(2) wherein what was framed as a mandatory duty was in fact intended, as counsel teased out, to be a permissive provision, and that will be changed to reflect the department's intent. At this point, yes, I would suggest we seek a time frame for making the amendments.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-71 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 18T:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): This item fits under the category of one step forward and two steps back. Seven modifications to the wording will be made, but there are some new issues, as well.

Mr. Abel: One new matter arose in connection with the Glass Doors and Enclosures Regulations and the Corded Window Covering Products Regulations. Counsel noted that a requirement to provide documents to an inspector appears overly broad in comparison to similar provisions in similar regulations. In the department's view, this is simply a problem with grammatical interpretation primarily in the English version. The department has promised to amend the English version of both regulations. It is expected that will be done in the 2013-14 fiscal year. If that is satisfactory to members, counsel could follow up in the regular fashion.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Albas: I have a quick question because I have an interest in the Antarctic file we spoke to earlier. Can we review the actions? I believe that a few things were happening. What will counsel do?

Mr. Bernhardt: The recommendation is to write a letter to request a progress report and to see if we can get some further particulars on precisely which amendments are being contemplated, to ensure that, at the end of the day, they resolve the committee's issues.

Mr. Albas: Good. I only heard the first part. Thank you.

SI/2012-3 — ORDER REPEALING CERTAIN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SPECIFICATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix U, p. 18U:1.)

SOR/2012-49 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT AND REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix V, p. 18V:1.)

SOR/2012-72 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS SALES INFORMATION REPORTING REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of document, see Appendix W, p. 18 W:1.)

SOR/2012-102 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AIRPORT VEHICLE PARKING CHARGES REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix X, p. 18X:1.)

SOR/2012-104—REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1635 — FOOD ADDITIVES)

(For text of document, see Appendix Y, p. 18Y:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "Action Taken,'' unless there is an objection, I suggest that we deal with all five items together.

Mr. Bernhardt: The five instruments listed together make some 24 requested amendments. The first, SI/2012-3, repeals certain specifications in connection with which 19 points of drafting have been raised. The material that was formerly in the specifications is now incorporated under the Weights and Measures Regulations, where the necessary corrections appear.

SOR/2012-49 removes a provision that provided for a fine for contravening the order of an inspector. However, there was no authority to impose such a penalty.

A similar case, SOR/2012-72, removes an unlawful provision providing a fine for failing to submit information to the minister within the time provided. Interestingly, the regulatory impact analysis statement accompanying that amendment describes it as, "a non-substantive correction.''

SOR/2012-102 removes an unnecessary provision and references to applicable taxes from airport vehicle parking charges for the reason that collecting taxes falls beyond the authority to fix a parking rate.

Senator Moore: Exactly.

Mr. Bernhardt: The final one, SOR/2012-104 corrects an inconsistent use of terminology.

SI/2012-43 — INVESTORS IN THE NORBOURG AND EVOLUTION FUNDS REMISSION ORDER

SI/2012-44 — RICHARD EAGLESTONE REMISSION ORDER

SI/2012-45 — LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK (DECISIONS NOT TO ADD CERTAIN SPECIES) ORDER

SI/2012-46 — ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENTS DONE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT

SI/2012-47 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 22, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-48 — ORDER FIXING VARIOUS DATES AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-50 — ORDER TRANSFERRING TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH KNOWN AS THE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE AND THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE UNIT

SI/2012-51 — NON-ARTICLE 5 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO) MEDAL FOR SERVICES ON OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO AFRICA ORDER

SI/2012-52 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2012-53 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2012-54 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2012-56 — ORDER FIXING JULY 6, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-57 — ORDER FIXING JULY 6, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SOR/2010-23 — REGULATIONS AMENDING AND REPEALING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT

SOR/2010-121 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-184 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-190 — TARIUM NIRYUTAIT MARINE PROTECTED AREAS REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-214 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-302 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVINCIAL LAWS REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-127 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-178 — PROMOTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ACCESSORIES REGULATIONS (PROHIBITED TERMS)

SOR/2011-209 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DESIGNATED PROVISIONS REGULATIONS AND THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FOREIGN STATES

SOR/2011-222 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-278 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1603 — GUAR GUM AND CORRECTIVE AMENDMENTS)

SOR/2012-118 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ONTARIO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-125 — ORDER 2012-87-03-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2012-126 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF CIRCULATION COINS OF TWO DOLLARS, ONE DOLLAR AND TWENTY-FIVE CENTS, SPECIFYING THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND DETERMINING THEIR DESIGN

SOR/2012-127 — ORDER REPEALING THE CANADA TURKEY MARKETING PROCESSORS LEVY ORDER

SOR/2012-128 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-130 — ORDER AMENDING THE QALIPU MI'KMAQ FIRST NATION BAND ORDER

SOR/2012-132 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PENSION BENEFITS DIVISION REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-134 — REGULATIONS DESIGNATING REGULATORY PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT (CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999)

SOR/2012-137 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernhardt: For the record, 33 instruments are listed under "Statutory Instruments without Comment.''

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there comments?

Seeing none, I wish you all a merry Christmas and happy holidays; see you in the new year.

(The committee adjourned.)

---