---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 23 - Evidence - May 9, 2013

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, May 9, 2013

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day, at 8:31 a.m., for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator Bob Runciman (Joint Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Ms. Charlton, Joint Chair, is ill and the vice-chair has yet to arrive, so we will conduct the meeting with me as chair, unless there are serious objections to doing so. When Mr. Pacetti arrives, he will assume his responsibilities.

Are we comfortable with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/89-93 — ONTARIO FISHERIES REGULATIONS, 1989

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 23A:1)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The first item on our agenda is a special agenda item has been before the committee on numerous occasions and has also been the subject of two disallowance reports. Counsel, over to you.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: That is correct, Mr. Chair. The issue here, as members well know, is based on the committee's position that without express authority, a provision in a regulation that results in criminal liability for contravening the terms and conditions of a licence or permit is unlawful. This falls from the fact that a licence is an administrative document; the conditions in that licence will be those attached by the official issuing the licence. Where those conditions are punishable, the exercise of the administrative discretion is punished as if it were law. That is the basis for the committee's objection.

In the case of the two disallowance reports, those reports were both referred back to the committee for further study, because then there was legislation introduced that would have resolved the committee's concern by creating that offence of contravening the terms and conditions of the licence directly in the Fisheries Act.

Unfortunately, both times, the legislation failed to receive passage. In addition to those two pieces of legislation, there have been several other attempts to introduce legislation to resolve this concern. For one reason or another, all of those have floundered.

Back in 2012, the minister indicated that the committee's concern would be taken into consideration in the course of developing modernized fisheries management legislation. In response to that advice, the committee suggested that if legislation might be some ways off, perhaps consideration could be given to introducing a short bill to deal specifically with the committee's concern. The minister said he would consider that suggestion.

At a meeting of the committee last May, I believe it was Mr. Albas who raised a question as to whether a resolution was provided in Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth And Long-Term Prosperity Act. That bill amended paragraph 40(3)(a) of the Fisheries Act to provide that anyone commits an offence:

(a) in carrying on a work, undertaking or activity, fails to comply with a prescribed condition of an authorization under paragraph 35(2)(a) or (c), with a condition established by the Minister under paragraph 35(2)(b), or with a condition set out in the regulations —

Here is the relevant part:

— or established under any other authorization issued under this Act.

If these last words would cover authorizations in the form of permits and licences, then the provision of the Ontario Fisheries Regulations would no longer serve any purpose and could be deleted. Before reaching that conclusion, however, the committee asked the department to give its understanding of the effect of the amendments.

The result is the department's April 3 letter, which explains that the amendment was not intended to address the committee's objection. Although the term "activity" seems broad enough to encompass fishing, and authorization could include permits and licences, the department indicates that because all the offences created by section 40 are meant to deal specifically with the provisions of the act concerning fish habitat protection and pollution prevention, and that is the part of the act to which they relate, it cannot be read as extending to fishing activities, per se.

On the other hand, if the intent was to include only authorizations connected to protecting fish habitat and not to actual fishing activities, why does the provision refer to conditions established under any other authorization issued under the act? Particularly as this is creating an offence, it might be thought there is need for a further amendment to clarify the scope at the very least.

While the department continues to assert that the provision in the regulations is lawful, it also says it is still considering a possible amendment, in its words, "to provide greater clarity." However, it is not in a position to give any further details. In that sense, I suppose the committee is back to square one.

Mr. Saxton: The letter says that the changes were not intended to address the committee's concerns, but they may have unintentionally addressed the committee's concerns. Do you think they still may have addressed the committee's concerns, even if they did not intend to do so?

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose it would be open to members to conclude that they were going to take a different interpretation than the department. As far as the committee was concerned, these were now expressly authorized.

It is a bit of an awkward resolution because the committee, then, would know full well that was not how the government interpreted the provision. I suppose it has a practical benefit if the committee is at least making the problem go away.

Mr. Saxton: Is the alternative to write back and seek further clarification?

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose there are a few alternatives. One, the committee could make a report simply saying, "This is where things have come to; this is the advice the committee has received. It is a bit frustrating that this is still hanging around, and hopefully there will be a resolution."

From my point of view, I am not sure a third disallowance report would be a responsible recommendation to make to the committee, given the fate of the last two.

There is another option. In April, the department said it was considering an amendment but could not at that time give any further details. The committee could give the department a little more time and then write back and ask if they have reached any conclusions on that possible amendment, or if they are in a position to give any more details.

Mr. Saxton: What is your idea of "a little more time"?

Mr. Bernhardt: The last advice is from about a month ago, so we could give them sometime into the summer and bring the file back in the fall. It does not really advance things much, but it may be that over the course of the next few months they will have a better handle on whether they intend to proceed with this clarifying amendment or not.

Mr. Saxton: We need to write a letter. Do we do it now or do we wait until the fall?

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose if the committee wrote now, it could make the point you have just made and say, "Thank you for telling us this was not what you intended. Are you sure you did not unintentionally address the issue?"

Mr. Saxton: At least it would give us more comfort as a committee if we got some clarification in that regard.

Mr. Bernhardt: We can try.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Mr. Albas, do you have something to add?

Mr. Albas: When I read the legislation in question, the use of the word "activity" seemed to address my concern. Again, the department has a slightly different version of it.

I agree with Mr. Saxton that maybe we should write back, because a lot has gone into this. I do believe that the issue has been resolved but obviously not to the department's satisfaction. I think we should clarify this.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I am not sure if the chair is supposed to have an opinion, but I do have one. I wonder whether we should not be writing to the minister and saying that the committee has determined that, in the view of the committee, this does meet the concerns that we have outlined over a period of 15 years. Ultimately, I suppose the courts will render judgment if it comes to that.

I think it is a strange fact that this committee, over a period of 15 years, has been urging change to address the concern, and then they brought in a bill that dealt with some elements but which, in essence, ignored the concerns of the committee. That is what they are telling us through this letter, I think, because they are suggesting their amendments did not address them.

I think the committee should be concerned about that and where we go with it. However, sending another letter does not cut it for me. I think too many of these departments treat the recommendations of the committee with less than the respect they merit.

Mr. Saxton: I concur with your suggestion to write the minister. I believe this minister may not have been minister last time. I think the last letter was written in 2010 when he was in a different portfolio. We have a new minister, so let us write to the minister.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Now.

Mr. Saxton: Yes, now.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

INTERIM ORDER NO. 10 RESPECTING PRIVATE OPERATORS (2012)

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 23B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Letters To and From Ministers," the next item authorizes the Minister of Transport to make an interim order to deal with a significant risk to aviation safety. We dealt with this not too long ago, but refresh our memories, counsel.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. This particular order governs private operators of Canadian aircraft that are not used to provide commercial air services. It replaces 27 sections of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

It is the latest in series of orders. The first order was made April 1, 2011. The regime that order put in place was kept in place while making seven further interim orders in succession. Finally, on July 28, 2011, the Governor-in-Council approved Interim Order No. 9. That approval by the Governor-in-Council means that the approved order can continue for a year as opposed to the two weeks for the first eight orders.

That interim order would have ceased to have effect July 14, 2012. Before that happened, Interim Order No. 9 was replaced by Interim Order No. 10, which was then approved by the Governor-in-Council on June 28. This latest order has effect until June 28, 2013.

The committee expressed concern with the practice of relying on a succession of interim ministerial orders as a substitute for regulations and asked the minister for an assurance that this practice would not be resorted to in the future. The reply from the minister acknowledges the committee's concerns. At the same time, the minister will not rule out the future use of another interim order if the new regulations replacing the present interim order are not finalized in time.

The department and the minister have claimed that this situation arose from what they term "extraordinary circumstances" that warranted immediate measures to address the significant risk to aviation safety. Those circumstances are that back in March 2010 the department announced that it would be taking over issuing private operators' certificates as of April 2011. This had previously been done by the Canadian Business Aviation Association. However, the department was unable to meet its own self-imposed deadline, and that gave rise to the making of these interim orders.

It seems questionable whether this is the sort of significant risk to safety that was contemplated when Parliament conferred the power to make interim orders.

The minister asserts that the repeated use of interim orders was not, nor has it become, an attempt to bypass the usual rule-making process. However, that is precisely the result, whether it is intended or not. You have a set of rules that replace regulations, that runs to over 35 pages, that is enforceable as law, and that has now been imposed for more than two years without having to go through the regulatory process. Also, it would seem that as of June 28 we may well be entering the third year of such a regime.

If a succession of 11 orders over three years does not bypass the usual regulation-making process, the question is at what point does the practice become improper? I guess that is for members to decide.

Mr. Albas: I was actually at the meeting when we discussed this last, so I was anxious to read what the minister had to say. At the last meeting, we determined that, yes, the process delegated to the Governor-in-Council to be able to establish this was all lawful, but by the same token I believe that we, as a committee, had legitimate concerns about this practice.

I suggest we monitor what happens once this interim order expires. However, I think we have done our job by expressing our concern to the minister, and the minister has acknowledged that he understands where we are coming from as a committee. We should see what action the minister chooses to take.

I think that is the most judicious way of moving forward. Once that interim order is passed, we can decide, based on the minister's actions, our response from thereon.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there any further comments? It has been recommended that we monitor the file.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: If I understand correctly, we are going to ask him to commit the same violation, but to advise us when he intends to stop doing so. In fact, we are going to let him do the same thing all over again.

The minister does not seem to be telling us that the procedure in the traditional and normal regulation process is integrated. He states that they may be obliged to act, but that they may have until June 2014 to obtain an answer that will cause them to have to adopt their regulations and tidy them up. Basically, the people involved in preparing these regulations may not be respecting all of the drafting rules. The regulations seem to be a grab bag of all sorts of things.

And so I am asking my colleague: what are we going to ask for at this point and how long are we going to tolerate this kind of practice?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are you posing that question to Mr. Albas?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes.

Mr. Saxton: Through the chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Yes, through the chair.

Mr. Albas has suggested monitoring the file, and you are suggesting something beyond that; is that correct?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would like to have an answer as to when they will draft the regulations and present them as real ones and not as a temporary item, otherwise we will come back at this time next year and be in the same situation.

That is why I say that if he is undertaking to start the process of regulation in the fall, there is publication and a process. Maybe the regulations will be done by June of next year.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): You are suggesting writing for clarification in terms of timelines, then.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, so we know how he intends to correct the situation and when.

Mr. Albas: Thank you for that. I certainly understand the concern, but we have been through this. We have expressed concerns over a practice with which we are uncomfortable, but a distinction should be made that everything the minister has done is lawful and has been authorized by Parliament. It is not necessarily ideal for this committee.

However, in terms of the options in front of us, I would again reiterate that we have already presented our concerns to the minister and he has said directly in his letter that these regulations are the highest priority of his ministry.

Again, the interim order is there until mid-June. I would simply suggest that doing anything else would be taking committee time and resources away. I suggest maybe we should just hurry up and wait.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): You are suggesting waiting until this fall; is that right?

Mr. Albas: Yes, monitor the file and see where it goes. If things turn out the way we would like, we can celebrate that our concerns were taken seriously.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I do not know if I understood correctly, but it seems to me there is an interpretation issue with regard to the urgency of making these changes. I see that the Minister of Transport said that in his opinion, the Aeronautics Act allows him to issue consecutive emergency measures. He may thus make another interpretation, it is not serious, and it is allowed. Could a professional explain to them clearly what is being asked for here and let them know that it is serious? Because we seem to be saying that this can continue in this way, and the time frames involved are very long. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding on their part? We could clarify things and locate the problem. I do not know. We need to do something to make them understand that things have to be done properly and that they cannot just let more time go by.

[English]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would even challenge when we say "lawful" until it is contested. It is supposed to be an emergency measure. If the emergency is too long, at a certain point the court will say we are not rendering any service to the Canadian people. If it is a document with many pages, perhaps there are contradictions with the way everything is put together. I have not read the 35 pages.

This is something to govern a very important industry. As far as I am concerned, "monitoring" for me means nothing, because I do not think our staff are looking every day to see if someone will table a new regulation. That is what why I am saying, "At least please tell us when you intend to stop the emergency measure," which will not be an emergency measure anymore. It is an emergency if you are going forward with the deadline, but if the deadline is after three years, the emergency does not stand for me. I am just saying to myself, let us make sure.

I think we have good reason: We changed ministers. This minister was advised, but three years ago it was another one. This one is new; fine. Let us give him a chance to say, "I will undertake to make a new regulation that will be undertaken in the near future." At least we have an indication that he will not repeat this over and over again. Otherwise, we will just bury this. I am sure there will be no monitoring.

As far as I am concerned, the letter does not need to be long and I do not think it will take a lot of time. It is just to ask them when they intend to stop the emergency measure and come out with a standard, regular regulation — a legal regulation — that will be clearer and better for the Canadian public.

Senator Moore: It might be a new minister but the bureaucrats are probably the same. The minister says "one of our highest priorities." It has been three years, so I think we should know and quite legitimately ask, "Do you have the regulations ready?" This is pursuant to what Senator Hervieux-Payette stated. We need to know that.

The history was that it was an emergency, so they resorted to the interim orders. Interim orders do not go on for three years. If there is a need for that process, there is always a need for the regulation to be put in place so that Canadians will know with certainty what is going on.

We should write; I do not think we should sit and wait. We should ask. It has been their highest priority, but it has been over three years. We should know how high this priority is, where it is and what is being done.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We spent about 20 minutes on whether we should monitor or write a letter. At this rate, we will be here until tomorrow. Can we not reach an accommodation?

Mr. Albas: Again, I would remind the committee that this is under the agenda heading of "Letters To and From Ministers." We wrote to the minister and expressed our concerns. What has significantly changed? We are still concerned. By the same token, we have a letter back from the minister saying he understands clearly. What other choices do we have other than to see what transpires?

There gets to be a process where Parliament has reigned in on this. Industry currently has the interim orders to be regulated under. New regulations have been promised. We know that sometimes new regulations can take time, particularly in technical fields such as this.

I would suggest that we allow more development of the file before we make a substantive response. Sending letters one after the other when there is no new information is the challenge here.

Senator Moore: You have to ask for the information, though.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We have a long agenda here. I hate to see division on a simple issue like this, but it looks like we will have to. Someone make a motion if that is the only way we will be able to deal with an issue such as this and let us get on with the agenda.

Senator Moore: I would move that the steering committee sit down and reflect.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Reflect?

Senator Moore: Do the appropriate, honourable thing in the interest of Canadians. Chair, you have experience with this.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Counsel has provided a potential compromise here. We will monitor the file. If it has not been dealt with appropriately by June 29, we will make contact, according to the committee's concerns, asking when they will deal with this matter as requested by the committee. Can we live with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Thank goodness.

SOR/2010-90 — MOTOR VEHICLE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS AND BOOSTER SEATS SAFETY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 23C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item 3 on our agenda. The committee wrote the minister about provisions in the regulations designed to prevent corrosion; namely, it would transfer to the occupants' clothing and this was not an appropriate criterion for a safety standard. The minister has responded that the department does not agree with our view.

Is there anything else on that, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: Not a lot, Mr. Chair. I should point out that the committee had concerns with other provisions that dealt with the transfer of colour from the fabric of seatbelts onto clothing, as well as fading requirements. There were amendments to resolve those pre-published back in November 2011. The actual amendments have yet to be made, so perhaps a follow up as to when those are expected might be in order.

As for the remaining point of contention which relates to the corrosion requirement, the committee has always made a distinction between the standard that would prevent corrosion and weaken metal parts and corrosion purely for the protection of people's clothing.

The obvious question is if the corrosion requirement is directed toward protecting against rust that would weaken parts, why has it been formulated in terms of a test where the standard is whether the rust will be transferred to the occupant or his clothing when the assembly is worn? Why place the focus on the clothing if the idea is to ensure that you will not weaken parts?

The last letter from the minister seems to argue that this is simply the method chosen to measure corrosion and is not the same, for example, as the requirement that colour from fabric not be transferred.

The question for members is whether they accept that. If the standard referred to rust that could be rubbed off by a cloth as opposed to if it would come off on people's clothing when they wear the belt, would that satisfy the committee? I throw that out as one possibility.

Senator Braley: About 45 years ago I delivered a lot of those parts to General Motors and various people through three or four sources. The original thing on clothing came in because we used cheap steel. It rusted, marked people's clothing and they got mad. It got tied to the piece that rubs against the belt. The belts were light material and weak, not like they are today with fibre build-up and plastics. There is no safety with regard to the colour. The testing is still done today on the part that is chrome plated. It is done under a thousand times microscope, where you enlarge something. If there are any parts on there, they test them and look for iron oxide.

Concerning his comment about non-ferrous, there is no such thing in this; it is all steel. The other concern was the wear on the belt, and now the belts are much stronger. The testing should be done for corrosion, but it has nothing to do with safety for the clothes.

When you get lawyers to do something that is an engineering job, it becomes difficult to tie the two together. I would forget it at this time and follow up with the two.

The manufacturers have not changed their drawings. That is what happens with General Motors and the rest of them; they do not take things out that are not relative anymore.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): What is your recommendation, senator?

Senator Braley: I would say follow up on the two items.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Follow up?

Senator Braley: Counsel mentioned two items to be followed up. For the one on safety, are you going to argue whether someone's clothing being marked is a safety concern or not? It is not.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): By following up, are you talking about writing again?

Senator Braley: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we comfortable with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-686 — INCOME TAX REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 23D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 4 under "Reply Unsatisfactory" is next. It involves the numbering of references in a definition to correspond with the amended version of the Income Tax Act. The French version was fixed, but the English version has yet to be changed. We had a promise five years ago that it would be fixed, but to date that has not occurred.

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: That is correct, Mr. Chair. The department's latest reply indicates that they cannot provide an expected date for making the amendment because in their words, the exact date of making the amendment will not be known until the amending order is made.

That seems to be an overly literal response to the committee's question. As members are aware, expected timelines are often sought and provided in terms of weeks, months or parts of a year.

As you noted, this issue was identified some five years ago. The required amendment should be relatively straightforward requiring numerical adjustments in references, but it appears there is no plan to actually make the amendment at present. Perhaps the department should be asked why this is so.

Mr. Anders: I suggest that we write back asking for more clarification, and maybe the words to use here are "anticipated timeline."

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

Senator Hervieux-Payette: For verification, in this case the French version is the right version and the English is not okay, so I agree with that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-718 — FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 23E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item 5 under "Reply Unsatisfactory(?)." About 89 points have been made in connection to this. Many relate to vague or subjective criteria, inconsistency between the regulations and the inspection manuals. Counsel?

Mr. Abel: That is correct. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not, to date, provided substantive responses to the concerns raised. It states that these matters are to be considered in the course of their regulatory modernization initiative. A review is expected to be completed by September, after which a detailed reply could be provided.

The question at this point is two-fold: whether the expected completion date for that is likely to be met and what approach we should take at this time.

Senator Batters: Given that they have indicated the forecast date for completion is September 2013, why not write back and say given that you have indicated this forecast date for completion of this review, we wish to hear from you as soon as that is complete with a detailed response.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there any additional comment? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-145 — MANNER OF DISPOSAL OF DETAINED, SEIZED OR FORFEITED GOODS REGULATIONS (PRECLEARANCE ACT)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 23F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item 6. The issue here is amendments to the regulations and the Preclearance Act. We were told it would proceed after the Government of Canada and the U.S. finalized a new preclearance agreement. Negotiations on that have only just begun. Other options, including proceeding with amendments so the regulations can be consistent with the act, are now under consideration. It appears that they have accepted the committee's view that the regulations are inconsistent with the act and therefore unlawful, but have yet to decide how to deal with it. Counsel, can you elaborate?

Mr. Bernhardt: I am not sure I can add a word to that, Mr. Chair. That is basically the situation. They seem to be saying that they realize the regulations are unlawful and will think of fixing them, but they are unsure when or what they are going to do.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: With all due respect, this file seems very complicated. You can read it and not really understand what it is about. What is it about exactly?

To help us through the complexity of it, it would be good to know what it is about. It is not explained at all anywhere in the regulations.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: According to their title, the regulations state they deal with how you go about disposing of goods that are detained in the preclearance area, things that are confiscated and set aside when you go through the airport.

Senator Bellemare: Like marijuana or drugs, for example?

Mr. Bernhardt: Or unauthorized items like big bottles of shampoo. Unfortunately, the regulations do not do that. They say these goods are turned over to an officer for disposal, which does not tell you how they are disposed of, et cetera.

There are a number of other aspects that do not match with the act. The department seems to have recognized that they need to go back to the drawing board because, in their words, apparently the regulation is not consistent with the act. The definition of an unlawful regulation is one that is not consistent with the act.

One would hope that if the department has accepted that, they might perceive the need to move with some expediency to correct that situation.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: What we understand is that they are in the process of negotiating with the United States, and they want the regulations to be made when the agreement has been concluded. However, as they know it is not consistent with the legislation, they may suggest that something be done.

In any case, perhaps we could write to them to ask for explanations and a tighter timeline. We could also suggest that if the negotiations are very long, the regulations could be prepared on the basis of what we have currently.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: To some extent there has been movement from the department because they have indicated that negotiations on this new agreement with the U.S. are moving more slowly than they first thought. They are exploring what to do in the interim.

Perhaps at this point the committee would like to know more precisely what they plan to do and when do they plan to do it?

Mr. Saxton: Correct; exactly.

Mr. Albas: That is reasonable.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-162 — CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING, CHROMIUM ANODIZING AND REVERSE ETCHING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 23G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): There are two agenda items under "Part Action Promised." The first is the Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing and Reverse Etching Regulations. Corrections have been promised on two points concerning drafting errors. The other concern involves accessibility to a standard that is incorporated in the regulations through incorporation by reference. The standard is unilingual and costs $36. The department is reviewing the standard and may conclude it is no longer required. The question of accessibility will no longer apply.

Is there anything else on that?

Mr. Bernhardt: I would add that the reason the question was raised is because if Bill S-12 passes, the Statutory Instruments Act will be amended to require regulation makers to ensure that their documents are accessible. In anticipation of this, the question was asked about what the department had done or would do to make it accessible.

It looks like the question may become moot if the standard is no longer to be relied upon and perhaps confirmation of that could be sought.

At some point the committee may well need to look at developing its own criteria to be used to examine the question of accessibility where it arises in cases like this. However, in this particular case it looks like that may be not necessary.

Mr. Saxton: Can we perhaps get back to this after Bill S-12 is dealt with? What would be the trigger point for us to deal with it?

Mr. Bernhardt: In this particular case, if members concur, we could probably chase up with the department to ask whether or not they will drop the standard.

As far as the broader question, it will depend whether Bill S-12 passes. The committee may then have to do some adjustments to its criteria to deal with the whole issue of accessibility going forward.

Mr. Saxton: That is an ongoing issue that you will monitor?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, which in a sense can possibly be ducked here.

Mr. Saxton: The question is do we just monitor this file?

Mr. Bernhardt: The last letter was February. We could monitor and follow up so that the file is ready to come back with an update in the fall.

Mr. Saxton: In the fall? That sounds reasonable.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: It says in the summary: "This standard is unilingual and costs $36." Then they talk about accessibility. I do not speak English. So if I need the standard, I have no access to it. I find this very serious. And no mention is made of it.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: That is certainly an issue the committee will likely have to grapple with down the road. We know from the courts that where a standard from a third party is incorporated in legislation, there is no constitutional requirement that it be in both languages. That is not the same as saying whether it is accessible for purposes of a requirement in the Statutory Instruments Act; the test may well be different. Just because something is constitutional does not mean it is accessible. However, there may be parallels that can be drawn.

Going forward, I think that is something, particularly if Bill S-12 passes, that the committee may have to look into.

In this particular instance, it looks like there may be a solution. If the department has decided it does not want to rely on that standard anymore and will take the reference to it out of the regulations, then this particular problem is resolved. Obviously the broader issue will remain.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: It is not accessible. I do not speak English. We are told there is no constitutional requirement. But I do not speak English, and so I do not have access to it and I cannot refer to it. On a practical level, this does not work.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: No, and there are a number of factors that will likely go into accessibility: availability in both official languages, costs and whether you can get a copy, period. Is it available on the Internet? How do you know if you have the most recent version? Accessibility is one of the issues that has come up in Bill S-12. It simply says "has to be accessible" without any indication of what exactly will meet that requirement.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: My comment is along the same lines. In any case, I think that it is probably very technical and even if it were in French, I would not understand it any better. That is not the issue.

If it is not in effect currently, I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Does this document, today, still serve as a frame of reference for the department, or is it no longer referred to, in which case there is no reason to be concerned? Is the ASTM International document still being referred to?

At this point, is it to some extent the standard that is being used by the department, or is there another document today that is accessible and that was issued by our government?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: In this case it is the ASTM, so it is an American standard, which is obviously why it exists in English only. Again, that is another issue. If you want to incorporate that sort of standard and have to comply with the accessibility requirement, does that put an onus on the government to prepare its own version? That, in turn, can give rise to copyright issues. It becomes a more complicated question than it seems at first glance, which I think is one reason the drafters of Bill S-12 chose to leave all that out.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I understand that it is not being applied now?

M. Bernhardt: No.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is still in effect?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, if you are testing surface tension of the solution that contains the chromium compound. Again, this is an industry standard. I think that is a factor, too. It is not a standard that the average person on the street will be bound by. It will govern a particular industry testing a particular thing for a particular purpose. That may be a relevant factor in some cases, as opposed to something that the average citizen will have to comply with.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am sorry to insist, but I know many of these plants. I had them in my riding when I was an MP. I visited them. I know there are many toxic products in these places and they are operated by people who do not always have a university degree. Most of the time they have learned the trade while working in these companies. We have many of them in Montreal. That is why I worry. I am not too sure that these people are fully bilingual because most of them are neither French nor English. I want to make sure if we do that and we say this is the standard and the ministry does, that means at the end of the day people could escape the implications. They could go before the court and say, "I am sorry, but we are in Canada and we do not understand these regulations." It is as if we do not have a regulation.

Mr. Bernhardt: Which may be one reason why the department is considering not using the standard anymore. Perhaps they have run into problems.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Does it exist or not? Is it still in force?

Mr. Bernhardt: Absolutely.

Mr. Albas: I think we are muddling a number of issues together. As counsel tried to point out, it has more to do with a greater problem. First, the department said they are reviewing this. Many of the concerns we have heard from individual members or senators have been taken into account. On that, I would like to point out this is an industry standard. For example, I have a number of foundries and industrial complexes in my riding, too. Again, this could be a standard when they are making a product to be sold in the United States. That is where many of the clients are from in my foundries. They have standards that they would like to see for quality. This may not have to do with chemicals because all provincial and federal regulations regarding the environment still apply, I am sure. It is not a case of a standard not taking those into account; it is just the industry standard for whom you are probably selling to. I think that is the reason why.

Again, it seems to me the department is taking the concerns into consideration. I think counsel is suggesting that Bill S-12 will relieve many of the questions the committee may have on certain issues, but the logical progression would be other issues that come up in terms of accessibility, et cetera.

I suggest we simply monitor the progress because this is due. As you can see, it says the department plans to publish draft regulations in Part I of the Gazette in the spring of 2014. They have heard our concerns. I think we have to see what happens with Bill S-12 — hopefully it passes sooner than later — and then it will become clearer as to what steps counsel might recommend the committee take in regards to a post-Bill S-12 agenda moving forward.

Senator Bob Runciman (Joint Chair) and Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Vice-Chair) in the chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): That is exactly what is wrong with Bill S-12. It will not require that these items be bilingual. That is exactly the point. Saying that we will wait until Bill S-12 is adopted is not acceptable because some of us are not in favour of this and you are penalizing a portion of the population that does not speak English. This is what Bill S-12 does. That is exactly the problem with Bill S-12. Now we are saying it is okay, let us wait for Bill S-12. A portion of the population will not have access to this type of standard. That is it just not acceptable to me.

Mr. Albas: I think we should be mindful that as parliamentarians we should have the debate on what is or is not in Bill S-12, what we would or would not like to see, in both respective houses. We have a file called SOR/2009-162. I think counsel is trying to say here is an example of a specific file. The department has heard our concerns, but this begs the larger question down the road. I think we should simply focus on the task at hand. If someone would like to raise something in either house to a minister or a senator on either side when it comes to Bill S-12, they should leave those debates outside of this particular committee.

Senator Braley: The French version is right beside it in the draft. What is wrong with the French version? It is the standard.

Mr. Bernhardt: It is the standard itself that the regulations refer to. The regulations say, in both languages, that when you are testing this material you have to test in accordance with this particular standard. When you go to that particular standard, ASTM D1331-89 —

Senator Braley: It is not what is delivered to us right here?

Mr. Bernhardt: No.

Senator Braley: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): I brought it up in Parliament and both opposition parties brought it up in Parliament. They all stated that this is the illusion of Bill S-12. I think counsel is bringing up the point, as he did before on the briefing of Bill S-12, that this is the problem. What I understood counsel to say was that we will have a problem accepting that documents will be only in one official language. It is very clear to me.

Mr. Saxton: I think that we can all appreciate the concerns addressed by our colleagues about both official languages. It is very important that we have documentation in both official languages, but I want to reiterate what Mr. Albas said. I am not sure this is the place. Bill S-12 will be debated and discussed in committee. Those are issues that should be brought up at the committee that deals with Bill S-12. I recognize and appreciate the concerns and think they are all valid, but I do not think this is the right place to address it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): I am not the one who brought it up.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there any additional comments on this agenda item?

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: Until Bill S-12 is passed, we have a unilingual anglophone document. So we are not addressing the accessibility issue. That problem has not been solved. What are we going to do in the meantime? I think this is a matter we have to raise in our letter.

[English]

Mr. Albas: First, we have written a letter and the department agrees that there are some concerns, given the Canadian context in this situation. I think that we should focus on the file, SOR/2009-162. I have made a suggestion that we monitor. The department has said we have valid concerns. They plan on gazetting some new regulations in the spring of next year. I think we have received a reply that is substantive and also a timeline, taking into account the concerns that this particular group has. I would suggest that we monitor the file.

Again, there are some greater considerations, but let us stay focused on the task at hand.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Let us get some clarity from counsel.

Do you believe the response has addressed the committee's concerns?

Mr. Bernhardt: They have indicated they are considering addressing the committee's concerns because they are studying the possibility. Reading between the lines, my impression is that it seems quite likely that at this point they are leaning toward getting rid of the use of this standard. That advice was the end of February. They say they are planning on making amendments to the regulations in the spring of 2014. We could certainly follow up in the fall and ask whether that is still the timetable and perhaps try to get them to confirm that, in fact, they have decided to get rid of that standard. I am not sure they will have much progress to report at this point because it has only been a couple of months.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Where is Bill S-12? Is it in the House of Commons now?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: At what stage?

Mr. Bernhardt: It has not completed second reading yet, I believe.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Of course, we could monitor it and say we will come back in March of next year to see what they have done if the bill has passed. However, if the bill has not passed — if you start all over again because there is a prorogation — that means you have to start the process again, which takes time.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We had a comment from counsel about following up in the fall and reporting back to the committee with respect to where they stand.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I agree with what.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-227 — LONG-RANGE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF VESSELS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 23H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item 8. There are two points raised about terminology in the French version of the regulations. The department has promised to address one of the points and has offered an explanation of the other.

Mr. Abel: I would suggest that the department's reply on the first point can be considered satisfactory and on the second point, as an amendment is promised, counsel can follow that up in the usual fashion.

Senator Moore: Monitor?

Mr. Abel: Monitor and follow up after a period of months.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-148 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REPORTING OF IMPORTED GOODS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 23I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 9 is under "Part Action Promised" and concerns a regulatory amendment to ensure that the French and English versions of the regulations are equivalent. That will be done in an amendment to the Customs Act addressing a minor discrepancy that the committee noted will be proposed through a miscellaneous statutory amendment.

Is there anything else, counsel?

Mr. Abel: I would note for members that it is not quite clear whether the department meant miscellaneous amendments to the Customs Act specifically or as part of a miscellaneous statute amendment bill in general. All that said, though, the amendment would address a simple drafting issue. It has been brought to the department's attention. It does not involve enabling authorities for regulation making. It may be acceptable to members to simply close the file now.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-112 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GENERAL PREFERENTIAL TARIFF AND LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRY TARIFF RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS.

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 23J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Reply Satisfactory(?)," these amendments would delete references to two tariff items that were repealed in 2005 and 2006. The department has promised to make the changes but has not given us any indication when that will occur.

Mr. Abel: That is the gist of it. It is open to members how they wish to proceed at this time.

You could read an implication in the letters. They mention that they want to align the regulations with the 2013 tariff schedule. That may indicate they mean to do it this year.

Senator Braley: Do you want to write to the department?

Mr. Abel: We could seek clarification.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-198 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS.

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 23K:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Under "Progress" is Item 11, Regulations Amending the Seeds Regulations. Counsel?

Mr. Abel: Previously, chairs of the committee wrote to the responsible minister on this file to suggest that the amendments agreed to proceed independently of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's broader modernization initiatives. Members also desired confirmation of this from the agency and that the file be brought back this spring.

The agency's letter January 29 indicates that the amendment will be adopted independently and should take effect in the current fiscal year. If that is satisfactory, counsel could continue to monitor the file and follow up in the usual fashion.

Mr. Vellacott: Does it not say "in the coming fiscal year," meaning April 2013-14?

Mr. Abel: Yes.

Mr. Vellacott: That is the fiscal year they are talking about.

Mr. Abel: That is correct.

Mr. Vellacott: I agree that it is to be monitored.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-223 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE BENZODIAZEPINES AND OTHER TARGETED SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 23L:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Item 12 is Regulations Amending the Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances Regulations.

Mr. Abel: Amendments to address four drafting errors were promised to be included in the next regulatory review carried out by the department. The January 11 letter indicates that an amendment should take place in 2013 or 2014. If this is satisfactory, counsel will continue to monitor the file.

Senator Batters: What are these amendments about? We do not have an indication from these letters what this matter is about. Given the subject matter here, it could be something quite serious or something extremely minor. I cannot tell from the letters.

Mr. Bernhardt: Given the reference to "correcting the wording in four provisions," I take it that these are minor drafting issues.

Senator Batters: Could you check into it and bring it back for the next meeting?

Mr. Bernhardt: Sure. If there were a substantive legal issue, it should have been explained.

Senator Batters: Given the subject matter of these regulations, I think we need to know.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/95-100 — NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS REGULATIONS

SOR/95-104 — NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/95-144 — NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE AREA PETROLEUM GEOPHYSICAL OPERATIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/95-187 — NOVA-SCOTIA OFFSHORE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS REGULATIONS

SOR/95-191 — NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/95-334 — NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE AREA PETROLEUM GEOPHYSICAL OPERATIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/96-114 — CANADA OIL AND GAS CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS REGULATIONS

SOR/96-117 — CANADA OIL AND GAS GEOPHYSICAL OPERATIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/96-118 — CANADA OIL AND GAS INSTALLATIONS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 23M:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Next is Item 13 under "Progress (?)."

Mr. Bernhardt: As members will see, nine regulations are grouped together here. Several dozen amendments are promised in connection with these regulations. All of the regulations are to be amalgamated and updated as part of the Frontier and Offshore Regulatory Renewal Initiative. This is a very large undertaking that involves literally hundreds of pages of regulations. The original target date for completion of the entire project was late 2012. The first phase of this initiative was completed in December 2009. It dealt with other regulations. These new regulations were reviewed, and an initial letter was sent to the department. On February 2012, the department indicated that it would prefer to deal first with the comments made on the new regulations because that might have an impact on the preparation and drafting of the amalgamated regulations on these files.

Most recently, the department says it expects to be in a position to have replies on those other files by the end of this spring. That is said to be a first step in recommencing this project. I am not sure what the reference to "recommencing" is because they had never previously advised that they had ceased work on the project. I am not sure what happened. There is no indication of the expected time of completion.

There is a new wrinkle. Last week, Bill C-61, the proposed offshore health and safety act, was introduced. It would make significant amendments to the acts under which these regulations are made. I assume that will have an effect on this overall modernization project. Perhaps it might be an idea to write to the department to ask where things stand and how it envisions this unfolding in light of the 250-page bill amending the parent statutes.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 23N:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): The next one is Item 14, Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: Oddly, this issue seems to harken back to another age as some provisions continue to use imperial units while others have been converted long ago to the metric system.

In 2000, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said that draft amendments were nearly complete. In 2005, they were still working on them. By 2006, they had sent a draft for review to the Department of Justice. In 2008, the CFIA told the committee the whole package was complex and lengthy and the review had been delayed. The joint chairs wrote to the minister to seek his cooperation to ensure that the promised corrections would be made without further delay. The minister replied that for reasons of economy the amendments concerning the use of the metric system would not be adopted independently of any other amendments proposed when the overall review of the regulations was completed.

This is now part of the agency's regulatory modernization initiative, of which members are aware. Most recently, the agency indicates that it anticipates the amendments will be made sometime in the next two years.

Mr. Anders: I suggest that we monitor the file.

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

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 O, p. 23O:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Next is Item 15, Regulations Amending the Fish Inspection Regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: A great many points were raised in connection with these two instruments some 13 years ago. It is a microcosm of all the issues that the committee deals with. There are many substantive things, including unauthorized imposition of record-keeping requirements, fees of doubtful validity, conferrals of discretion in subjective terms, creation of the offence of contravening the conditions of certificates of registration, no distinction between circumstances leading to suspension and cancellation of registration, and unauthorized powers to grant exemptions from the regulations and the act.

Amendments were to have been made in 2013 to address the less serious matters that the committee raised — a number of drafting issues and things like that. The many other more serious concerns were to have been resolved through amendments to the Fish Inspection Act. That act will be completely replaced by the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which in turn will require a complete revision of the regulations. That is expected to be completed in 2014.

I should add that the new act contemplates and provides enabling authority for these provisions where the committee found there was no authority in the old act. The act has yet to come into force, but the anticipated date for the new regime is 2014.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Are there recommendations?

Mr. Bernhardt: If members are happy with that time frame, we will monitor the file and seek periodic progress updates.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-34 — CANADIAN CHICKEN ANTI-DUMPING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 23P:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): The first of three items under "Action Promised" is Canadian Chicken Anti-Dumping Regulations.

Mr. Abel: This instrument repeats certain definitions found in the Canadian Chicken Farmers of Canada Proclamation, the enabling instrument under which it is made. The committee determined that these definitions are unnecessary and should be removed.

In relation to the Canadian Chicken Marketing Quota Regulations, which were before the committee at the last meeting, the Chicken Farmers of Canada had refused to delete the definitions. The committee had indicated, therefore, that it was considering disallowance. In response, the minister informed the committee that the Chicken Farmers of Canada were prepared to make the necessary amendments. Subsequently, a letter dated February 21 was received from the Farm Products Council on this file indicating that it is working with the Chicken Farmers of Canada to proceed with the amendments to these regulations. If that is satisfactory, a timeline can be sought for the making of those amendments.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-223 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 23Q:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Item 17 is Regulations Amending the Seeds Regulations.

Mr. Abel: Five and a half of six points have been resolved on this file by SOR/2012-286. Counsel subsequently received a promise to make the last amendment and also amendments addressing a further matter brought up by counsel since the committee's last meeting. These are all drafting issues, and counsel can monitor the file until the amendments are made.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-305 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD REGULATIONS, 2001

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 23R:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Next is Item 18, Regulations Amending the Canada Industrial Relations Board, 2001.

Mr. Abel: At its last review of this file, the committee considered the board's reply concerning subsection 12.1(2) to be unsatisfactory and recommended again that it be amended. There is now agreement to make that change. I would note that the board returned a positive commitment within two weeks of receiving the committee's consideration, which is fairly quick.

One other promised amendment is outstanding. The board at this time was not able to provide a date for the making of the amendment. It recently received new responsibilities under the Status of the Artist Act, which shifted another tribunal's duties over to it when it was recently amended.

At this time, if members wish, counsel could monitor the file and seek a timeline in the coming months.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-292 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (RUM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 23S:1.roman; )

SOR/2013-3 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 23T:1.)

SOR/2013-42 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PORT AUTHORITIES OPERATIONS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 23U:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): There are three agenda items under "Action Taken."

Mr. Bernhardt: I will deal with these instruments as a group, which together make a total of four requested amendments.

I will highlight only SOR/2012-292. This repeals a section of the Food and Drug Regulations, which permitted rum from Caribbean Commonwealth countries to be imported in bulk, blended and bottled with Canadian rum, and sold as Caribbean rum. This was intended to promote international trade and economic development.

The committee concluded that the Food and Drugs Act was not meant to be used for this purpose and that the section was ultra vires. With the deletion of this provision, the importing and blending of Caribbean rum is dealt with under the Spirit Drinks Trade Act. The committee can close the file, which it first considered in 1990.

SI/2012-91— ORDER FIXING NOVEMBER 30, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTIONS 131 AND 132 OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-92 — ORDER REPEALING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C.1987-86 OF JANUARY 22, 1987

SI/2012-93 — ORDER REPEALING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2003-1304 OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2003

SI/2012-95 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 15, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-96 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 15, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-97 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 1, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-98 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 6, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTIONS 605 AND 607 OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2012-101— ORDER DECLINING TO REFER BACK TO THE CRTC DECISION CRTC 2012-485

SI/2012-102 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 14, 2012 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2013-3 — PROCLAMATION GIVING NOTICE THAT THE PROTOCOL AMENDING THE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME CAME INTO FORCE ON AUGUST 31, 2012

SI/2013-5 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 11, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2013-7 — RESERVATION TO THE CROWN WAIVER ORDER (GRACE LAKE, N.W.T.)

SI/2013-8 — ORDER AMENDING THE VISITING FORCES AND VISITING FORCES PERSONNEL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES REMISSION ORDER

SI/2013-9 — DEBBIE JOHNSTON REMISSION ORDER

SI/2013-10 — XUI QUE HONG REMISSION ORDER

SI/2013-11— KEITH PHILLIPS REMISSION ORDER

SI/2013-12 — JAMES NOBLE REMISSION ORDER

SOR/2009-102 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-175 — ORDER 2012-87-06-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2012-188 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CREDIT BUSINESS PRACTICES (BANKS, AUTHORIZED FOREIGN BANKS, TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES, RETAIL ASSOCIATIONS, CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANIES AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES) REGULATIONS

SOR/2012-203 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES THAT MAY BE USED AS BLEACHING, MATURING OR DOUGH CONDITIONING AGENTS

SOR/2012-204 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES THAT MAY BE USED AS COLOURING AGENTS

SOR/2012-205 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES THAT MAY BE USED AS EMULSIFYING, GELLING, STABILIZING OR THICKENING AGENTS

SOR/2012-206 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES THAT MAY BE USED AS FOOD ENZYMES

SOR/2012-207 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES THAT MAY BE USED AS FIRMING AGENTS

SOR/2012-208 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES THAT MAY BE USED AS GLAZING OR POLISHING AGENTS

SOR/2012-209 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR FOOD ADDITIVES WITH OTHER GENERALLY ACCEPTED USES

SOR/2012-279 — BY-LAW AMENDING CERTAIN BY-LAWS MADE UNDER THE CANADIAN PAYMENTS ACT

SOR/2012-296 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-12 — ORDER AMENDING THE EXPORT CONTROL LIST

SOR/2013-13 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 2 TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, NO. 2013-1 (NORWAY HOUSE CREE NATION)

SOR/2013-14 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, NO. 2012-2 (MATSQUI)

SOR/2013-16 — ORDER AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK OF CANADA IN SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT

Mr. Bernhardt: For the record, 33 instruments have been listed as reviewed but without comment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Pacetti): Thank you, counsel.

(The committee adjourned.)

---