---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 25 - Evidence - June 6, 2013

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 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 and Ms. Chris Charlton (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

LIST OF STATUTORY AMENDMENTS AGREED TO AS OF APRIL 30, 2013

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Good morning. We will start with a couple of Special Agenda Items. The first one is coming back to us as a result of a request we made as a committee on March 21, 2013, and deals with a List of Statutory Amendments.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: That is correct. I should emphasize that this list of amendments has been agreed to. There may well be other amendments to statutes that the committee is seeking that are not listed because they have not yet been agreed to. As they were last year, the amendments are listed in three groups.

The first group is a list of 12 amendments that the committee has been told will be part of the next set of proposals for a miscellaneous statute law amendment bill. The last advice the committee received from the Minister of Justice was that he was hopeful that such a bill would be introduced this session. An update was requested in the fall and a reminder was sent in March. As yet, the committee has not received the minister's response with the latest update.

The second group is a list of 26 amendments that are to be included in parts of various other legislative initiatives. The third group is a list of six amendments in bills currently before Parliament.

In an effort to make the information a little more accessible at a glance, a chart has been prepared that summarizes the amendments. That information is basically here this morning for members' attention and information.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any questions about the information presented?

Thank you very much for putting that together.

SI/2012-37 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p.25A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item No. 2 under "Special Agenda Items'' is an Order Amending the Canadian Passport Order. In the package before you, you will find a copy of the committee's letter to DFAIT without a response.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The issue is the committee's suggestion that the order include a specific period for which passport services can be denied. At present, that period is five years, which coincides with the length of time that a passport is issued. Given that it was anticipated that a 10-year passport would be forthcoming, Foreign Affairs was reviewing the order. That review was to include the matter of the period for the refusal. The committee wanted the file brought back this morning and advised the department that it would like to have the department's advice as to what decision had been made or at least what progress had been made. There has been no reply.

On May 8, it was announced that effective July 2 responsibility for Passport Canada will be transferred to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It may be that Foreign Affairs thinks that since it is will no longer be responsible for the order, it is off the hook to provide a reply.

Mr. Saxton: Counsel, we have not sent anything to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which will be responsible as of July.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is right.

Mr. Saxton: Perhaps we should send them either a new letter or the old letter with a cover letter so that we are sending it to the right people; and let us give them a deadline. They might need some time to get up to date on the file. We will be gone until September anyway, so why not include a deadline for some time in the fall?

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-165 — OIL AND GAS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 25B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): The next item is under "Letters To and From Ministers.'' Members will recall that we sent correspondence to HRSDC. We received a reply from the Ministry of Labour promising completion by the end of this year.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The committee had expressed some concern with the delays that had taken place and asked that the amendments addressing its concerns be separated and processed independently of the broader review. In her reply, the minister expresses concern with the delays, agrees to proceed separately with the amendments and indicates that she hopes it will be completed by the end of the year.

Mr. Seeback: It seems like we are making some progress, so I suggest we monitor and follow up in the fall.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-120 — MARITIME OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 25C:1.)

SOR/2011-87 — AVIATION OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 25D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "New Instruments,'' we have two items. We are in the same position with respect to both of them and have been waiting for a response since July 2011. We will start with Marine Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: These regulations replace the earlier Maritime Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. In doing so, they addressed four of the committee's concerns. However, 153 points were noted in connection with the new regulations nearly two years ago. The department's latest letter deals with a number of files. As far as these regulations are concerned, it states that the concerns raised will be addressed once inquiries concerning some of these other regulations have been resolved. The department indicates that it is aware of the need to provide a substantive reply, but notes it will have to undertake stakeholder consultations first.

While the need to consult before making amendments is understandable, it is difficult to see why consultation should be needed before stating whether it agrees with the points raised. In effect, the people who made the regulations are saying they have to consult to find out what the regulations mean.

No indication is given as to precisely when the committee can expect that substantive reply. As the note suggests, the question for members this morning is how long the committee is willing to wait for that substantive response.

Mr. Saxton: I think that we need to follow up, obviously. The question is how. We could write a letter, or counsel could contact them and find out the reason for the delay.

Counsel, which method do you think is most effective?

Mr. Bernhardt: I am in the hands of members. We can always contact the department and report back. Given where we are in the calendar, if we write, presumably we will have the reply by the fall. Normally you would think making the phone call would be the quicker route, but either way the committee will not be advised of the result before September. I am not sure; it may be six one of one and a half-dozen of the other in this case.

Mr. Saxton: If you have a letter, you have a paper trail.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

A third option might be to write the minister and ask for his help in expediting matters. I do not know if that is a route members wish to go.

Mr. Saxton: That may be a route we have to go eventually, but I do not know if it is the route we take right now. We should either have you contact them by phone or letter. As you say, we have some time now because we will be breaking for the summer. However, you could write them a short letter asking for an explanation and diarize to deal with this in the fall when we get back.

Senator Braley: I would make the phone call and follow it up with the letter to put it on the record, because I do not I think they understand in reading it that this one and the next one are almost the same thing. My recommendation would be to phone, discuss and then follow up with a short note confirming our telephone conversation and that we expect to hear something by the fall.

Mr. Vellacott: Do you ever meet with officials? Is it ever appropriate to call and meet with them?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, in some cases we do that. That probably has more value where you have an initial response, there are issues where there is no meeting of the minds and you are trying to thrash things out. In a sense there is not a lot to meet on here because we have not received a reply on anything yet.

Mr. Vellacott: You are trying to understand the delay but you do not have anything of substance at this point.

Mr. Bernhardt: Precisely.

Mr. Saxton: To summarize, I like what Senator Braley suggested, that counsel could call them and then just follow up with a summary letter of the conversation so that it is documented.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I gather there is consensus to proceed in that way on Items 4 and 5. Is that right?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-124 Ð PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 25E:1. )

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 6 under "Part Action Promised'' deals with Pest Control Products Regulations. We have had a 50-50 success rate so far. Three have been pre-published, but we have three outstanding.

Shawn Abel, Counsel: That is correct, Madam Chair. Thirty-three points were originally raised and these regulations concern importation, labelling use and handling of both registered and unregistered pest control products.

There is a bit of a history in the correspondence since this last went to committee. The March 23, 2011 letter from the department promised amendments on many of the remaining points and there were also previously promised amendments when this last went to committee. With the March 23 letter, I would draw members' attention to point 31 on the final page concerning sections 68, 69 and 70. In addition to amendments agreed in the first paragraph, the second paragraph repeats a response to a matter already considered satisfactory the last time the file was before committee. The third paragraph relates to a concern that section 68(b) appeared to be unnecessary as it prohibits the sale of food and feed crops in which the concentration of residues of pest control products used in research would result in the sale of that food being prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act.

If it would be prohibited under that act, we wondered why it would seem necessary to do so again under these regulations. The department states that the food and feed crops used for research may not be evaluated for the purposes of that act. I would also note that the regulations extend the prohibition to both feed and feed crops, and the Food and Drugs Acts only applies to food itself.

For these reasons, I suggest the provision seems satisfactory.

Following the department's March 23, 2011 letter, counsel sought further details concerning some of the promised amendments. Proposed amendments have now been pre-published. They would appear to resolve all of the committee's concerns, except for the three matters set out today. The pre-published amendments are expected to be made in September.

Concerning the three points detailed in the note, point 11 concerns a requirement that the principal display panel of a registered pest control product include a guarantee statement that is not in any sense a legal guarantee. The committee previously determined this should be removed. The department now states that doing so will require extensive consultation and this will be addressed as part of the regulatory review cycle.

Point 12 concerns the requirement that the secondary display panel of a registered pest control product state that the user assumes the risk that arises from using the product in a manner contrary to the instructions. This language appears to either attach or comment on civil liability concerning the use of a pest control product. This is an effect that would not be authorized under act, and in any case is not intended by the department. The department indicates that it merely wishes to warn users that improper usage could cause serious harm to people and the environment. Counsel then suggested that a warning along those lines is what actually should be provided and the matter is now under consultation.

With respect to point 15, the committee previously desired an explanation as to the meaning of "bulk containers'' and suggested that a definition be put in the regulations. The department agrees now to add the definition to the regulations, although it states it is not a priority to do so and that extensive consultation will again be required. At this point, it is still unknown what the department takes the meaning of that term to be. I would suggest a further letter be drafted on that point, and following up on progress on all the other matters.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): 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 F, p. 25F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): With regard to Item 7 under "Part Action Taken,'' there is a hodgepodge of things happening on this file. Ten items have been dealt with, two are promised in the next legislative initiative, English and French discrepancies have been corrected, and other matters have been drawn to the attention of the World Customs Organization Harmonized System Review Sub-Committee.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. As for the two promised amendments, they are to be addressed in the next legislative initiative. The schedule to the Customs Tariff is amended quite regularly, so the remaining amendments should proceed in a relatively expeditious manner. We can monitor progress on those in the usual fashion if members concur.

There were certain discrepancies that seemed to appear between the English and French version in certain notes to Chapter 8 of the schedule. These turned out to simply be errors in the departmental consolidation, which is the unofficial internal document. Those have been corrected on the website, so there are no actual amendments required there.

The final matter again concerned English and French issues arising from the fact that there are frequent instances in the French version of the tariff where multiple terms are used, where there is only one consistent term used in English version. The reason for this is that it reflects terminology found in the harmonized system, which is negotiated internationally through the World Trade Organization. The department has indicated that the committee's comments on this matter will be communicated to Canada's representative to the World Customs Organization Harmonized System Review committee. There is probably little more that can be done in this regard, given we are dealing with an international agreement.

Senator Braley: I agree with your monitoring of the situation.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-32 — CONTROLLED GOODS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 25G:1. )

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 8 on our agenda under "Reply Satisfactory (?)'' is the Controlled Goods Regulations. We had raised three points and are being told they will be dealt with through amendments in April 2015.

Mr. Abel: That is correct. The last time this was at committee it was a bit clear whether there was an agreement to make amendments. Counsel had spoken to departmental officials. At that meeting, all had been clear but the correspondence that followed it had been a little vague. Now we have received clear confirmation that the amendments will be made. The date expected is April 2015. At this point I would say it is open to members on how they wish to proceed.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: It seems very clear from reading the letters that they want to move forward. Why is this taking so much time? Did you get any clarification about the fact that they are short-staffed? Did they add any information about that or was it just an excuse?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: At this point, the only question for members is whether they are content to wait until 2015. Beyond that, we have an undertaking.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: So let us proceed like that.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-363 — ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 25H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 9 concerns the Antarctic Environmental Protection Regulations. The department has made a promise to follow up with us. The question to the committee is the same as the last item: Are we satisfied with that response?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The committee had wanted some more details on exactly what the nature of the promised amendments would be. That was because the committee has had difficulty previously in making clear to the department the issue in this case. In fact, there was one previous attempt to amend the regulations to address at least some of the committee's concerns, and it turned out they did not do so.

Therefore, the committee had wanted some specifics. The department's reply is that it does not yet have any amendment options to provide the committee. On the other hand, it does promise to seek the committee's advice once it has options and proposed amendments.

Given that undertaking, this is probably sufficient, at least for the time being.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is that agreed that we will just monitor it for now?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/91-594 — PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 25I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 10 under "Progress'' is the Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations. Although the amendments for this item will not be in the next Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendments Program initiative, it will be in a "future'' one.

Mr. Abel: That is correct.

I would note for members' benefit that five amendments sought on this file were made on December 13, 2012. This included correcting discrepancies between the French and English versions, removing defunct passages and providing a clear time period as required to be prescribed under the act.

As the joint chair said, the amendments to the act have been now moved to another legislative initiative, so the question is how the committee would like to handle it this time. It is not known when a bill would be proposed.

Mr. Calkins: I do not understand; I think we need a little more clarification. Would it be possible to write them, ask for a timeline and see if they are willing to provide one so that we could better assess it in the future?

Mr. Abel: We could do that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-227 — MARIHUANA MEDICAL ACCESS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 25J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): With regard to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, Item 11, it has been proposed that the regulations come into force March 31, 2014.

Mr. Abel: That is correct. These regulations will be entirely repealed and replaced by a new set made this autumn — or at least expected to be made this autumn. That action would resolve the one remaining concern of the committee relating to two provisions of these regulations.

If members are satisfied with the progress at this point, counsel will continue to seek updates.

Senator Batters: I think we can just continue to monitor until these current regulations are repealed.

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

Hon. Member: Agreed.

Senator Moore: When do you bring it forward again? When do you bring it back to the committee; would you bring it back in the fall? How long do you let it sit?

Mr. Abel: If we have not received any further communication from them, we will write back four months after the last contact. We would bring it back to committee if something changes in the expected timeline. Alternatively, if it is close to the time when it will change, we might wait to see if it changes.

Senator Moore: Thank you.

SOR/2006-147 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 25K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): On Item 12, we are told the remaining amendments should come into force in 2014.

Mr. Abel: I would note that since the committee's last review of this instrument, amendments resolving 10 matters have been made by SOR/2012-286, and those concern French and English equivalency and drafting issues.

Three matters remain outstanding, one of which was intended to be resolved by SOR/2012-286. Counsel informed the department that the amendment to subsection 6.22(2) did not in fact correct the discrepancy identified there between the French and English versions. Consequently, that provision will be amended once more.

The other two amendments will revolve around distinguishing between the circumstances leading to a suspension or a cancellation of a permit, and clarifying the purpose of an inspection of a product or a rendering plant or mill, as well as setting out the criteria for deciding whether to issue an inspection certificate.

Those amendments, as said, are expected to be made in 2014. If that is acceptable, counsel will continue to monitor the file.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-193 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EGG REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 25L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item No. 12 on our agenda, Regulations Amending the Egg Regulations. We are told in the correspondence that the points will be looked at in the "upcoming fiscal year.'' However, given the date of the correspondence, I assume it now means this fiscal year.

Mr. Abel: That is correct, Madam Chair. I would note that four of the five matters first raised in 2007 have now been resolved. This includes limiting the director's power under the regulations to suspend or cancel the registration of an egg station, so that such power is expressed to be within the scope of the enabling act. Also, amendments were made clarifying the distinction between a notice of intent to cancel a registration and an actual notice of cancellation, and correcting a drafting issue in the English version.

At this point, if members are satisfied with progress, again, I would suggest monitoring the file.

Mr. Vellacott: I think we should write back asking for a timeline regarding the time frame that is inherent here. The issue is outstanding.

Mr. Abel: Their last correspondence indicated that they planned to make the amendments within this fiscal year. Normally we would write back over the summer to see if they are still planning to meet that timeline. We could do that, if that would be acceptable.

Mr. Vellacott: I think that would be fine.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-140 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 25M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 14. We are being told by the department that they still hope to have the amendments come forward in the 2013-14 fiscal year.

Mr. Bernhardt: To be addressed are six concerns stemming from this instrument. They relate to placing some parameters on the exercise of certain discretionary powers by park superintendents, as well as a couple of drafting matters. In one case, the discretion to issue a permit to display or distribute material, provided it is not of a violent or offensive nature, could be seen to be sufficiently subjective as to contravene the Charter.

The agency had reported that it had postponed the amendments because of a lack of resources. Subsequently, it indicated that it then planned to go ahead with the new miscellaneous amendments package that was supposed to be developed this spring. We were then told verbally in the course of a telephone conversation that the changes had been postponed once again but would be made in the current fiscal year.

As Madam Chair indicated, in its last letter on March 26 the agency somewhat cautiously reported that it hopes to see the amendments made this fiscal year, although it does make reference to the difficulties in providing an exact time frame. I guess time will tell.

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

Mr. Anders: Due to the break we will have over the summer, we will just wait to see if they come through on that in the fall and proceed from there.

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

Senator Moore: So we will bring it forward in the fall? Okay.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Before I turn the gavel over to Senator Runciman, I just want to note I was remiss in not saying at the outset that Mr. Masse had asked counsel to prepare us a list of the times we have received responses from departments where they have indicated that the lack of resources is a reason for them not proceeding with regulatory amendments that have been requested. Counsel is prepared to do that, but since it was a request by Mr. Masse, would the committee agree to bring that forward in the fall?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-184 — REGULATIONS AMENDING AND REPEALING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, 2000-1 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 25N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 15 under the heading "Progress (?)'' has been before the committee for 12 years.

Mr. Bernhardt: The issue concerns provisions in feeds, fertilizers and seeds regulations requiring information on labels to be in English or French or both. Of course, it has always been the position of the committee, particularly when dealing with labelling requirements that go to health and safety, to have the information appear in both official languages. As indicated, the agency has been studying, consulting on and preparing the amendments since 2000.

Amendments were forecast to be made in 2012. However, they are now to be part of the miscellaneous package, which the CFIA says is a priority and anticipates coming into force in 2014. I suppose by way of recommendation given the time that has passed, members might consider suggesting to the agency that should this latest timeline be pushed back again, the committee would wish to see the amendments dealing with its concerns processed separately.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: This matter has been dragging on for so long, but since I see a genuine will to move forward, we should continue our efforts in the fall to make sure that everything happens as they say it will.

[English]

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 25O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item 16 on our agenda. Environment Canada promised in 2006 to amend the EPA to correct a discrepancy between the French and English versions and promised amendments to 22 provisions of the regulations. The regulations have been amended, but they have not followed through on their commitment to amend the EPA.

Do you anything additional, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: The department has proposed submitting the draft amendment to the EPA when Parliament undertakes the five-year review of the act, which is mandated under the Environmental Protection Act or the next time a bill concerning Part 7 of the EPA is introduced. The five-year review was scheduled to begin in 2010 but has yet to start. The last time I made inquiries, there was no indication that it was even on the environment committee's radar.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): What do we do?

Senator Braley: There are only two options: deal with the problem or follow the amendment.

What is your recommendation, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: As always, I am in members' hands on this. We can safely say at this point that parliamentary review of the Environmental Protection Act is probably not in the immediate offing. It has not started yet, and I imagine it would be a huge undertaking. It is open to the committee to write back to say that rather than wait an unspecified number of years for the review, the committee would like to see other options put forward.

Senator Braley: Could the letter say that if it has not started by the fall, we will proceed?

Mr. Bernhardt: We could also suggest a miscellaneous statute amendment bill as a possible vehicle to explore. I do not know whether the Department of Justice would consider this eligible for that, but they could ask.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there such a bill on the horizon?

Mr. Bernhardt: We hear regularly that there will be one this session; but I am not sure if the Minister of Justice would rank it amongst his highest priorities.

Senator Braley: It is like tossing a coin. Frankly, if the thing is going to change entirely, we should proceed in that direction. It is not a major problem, is it?

Mr. Bernhardt: No. The 22 amendments to the regulations have been made.

Senator Braley: If it were a major problem, I would suggest the other course of action. I suggest we monitor the file and see if in the fall whether they have started the process.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there differing views? Hearing none, we will follow that course of action.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 25P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item No. 17, Regulations Amending the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations. Amendments to eight provisions have been promised to provide clarification and remove redundancies and inconsistencies, but the completion date has been pushed back to the end of this year or early next year.

Mr. Abel: I have nothing to add. The question is whether that is satisfactory for members. If so, we will continue to monitor the file in the usual fashion. If not, we would write back with the committee's views.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Direction?

Mr. Saxton: Monitor.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is it agreed that we continue to monitor?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2013-6 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (SOUTH SLAVE REGION) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 25Q:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The next agenda item is Item No. 18 under "Action Promised.'' Counsel has identified a discrepancy between the English and French versions of the schedule. There is a promise to fix this "shortly.''

Mr. Abel: I do not have much to add there either. I would suggest at this time that we monitor the file and write back over the summer to see when it will be made.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are members agreed to monitor the file?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-237 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NARCOTIC CONTROL REGULATIONS AND OTHER RELATED REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-238 Ð REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 25R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agenda Item 19 concerns two instruments, and the committee has been seeking a positive response for some time.

Mr. Abel: When these instruments were last before the committee, the only outstanding issue concerned the inconsistent usage of the terms "distributeur'' and "distributeur autorisé'' in the French version of both regulations. It has been agreed that the provisions in question will be reformulated to achieve consistent usage. The suggestion in the department's January 17, 2013, letter seems such that they will address the problem. The promised amendments are planned to be made this year or the next. The question is how the committee would like to follow up.

Senator Braley: It is your decision. What do you think we should do?

Mr. Abel: The last letter from the department was in January. It would be about time to follow up to see if they have a more precise timeline.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-151 — CANADA EDUCATION SAVINGS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 25S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 20 is the Canada Education Savings Regulations. The committee expressed concern about the use of subjective criteria and, again, a French-English discrepancy.

Mr. Abel: On this file, the department has agreed to make amendments on all the provisions in question. This is planned to be done in conjunction with other amendments to the regulations, but the department cannot say when this will be done.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): They cannot say?

Mr. Bernhardt: They have not said.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Committee advice, direction?

Senator Braley: I would say monitor.

Mr. Bernhardt: Or we can write and ask when.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Ask for a timeline. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-124 — BOWIE SEAMOUNT MARINE PROTECTED AREA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 25T:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item 21. The amendments that have been promised will remove a redundancy and correct a discrepancy between French and English. There is also a problem with the protected areas management plan imposing restrictions that are not authorized in the regulations. The department has indicated they are considering the best way to approach this.

Mr. Abel: That is correct. I would note that there is quite a bit of correspondence exchanged on the larger issue concerning the management plan, which of course is an administrative document and is not legally binding or enforceable but would appear to alter the permissions and prohibitions set out in the regulations.

Counsel met with departmental officials on June 26, 2012. The results of that meeting are outlined in the department's letter of September 5, 2012.

The department now acknowledges that the management plan cannot contravene the regulations and is considered a guidance document. It was proposed that either the zoning scheme set out in the management plan that would set out different zones of activity be removed from the plan or the regulations would be amended to set out management zones.

The department last indicated a preference for the former option of removing mention of the zones from the plan. However, a commitment to either option has not yet been made and the department wishes to undertake consultations. The department has promised to notify the committee of the outcome of those consultations. In the meantime, I suggest that a progress report could be sought over the summer concerning the other outstanding promised amendments.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We are agreed with that course of action.

SOR/2009-197 — VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 25U:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): With regard to Item 22 on our agenda, counsel has identified three problems. One is the minor error in the French version. The second is a discrepancy between the French and English versions and the third is imposing an identical obligation on both the manufacturer and the seller. The ministry has promised to address the concerns.

Mr. Abel: I would add that the department's plan is to make these amendments when these regulations are combined with two other instruments which also deal with volatile organic compounds. A timeline has not yet been given, so I would suggest writing back and seeking an expected date of completion for that.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-306 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PRELIMINARY SCREENING REQUIREMENT REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 25V:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 23 under "Action Taken'' is self-explanatory.

SI/2012-103 — ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CONCERNING THE TWO-YEAR REVIEW OF THE LIST OF ENTITIES

SI/2013-1 — BRITISH COLUMBIA FORESTRY REVITALIZATION REMISSION ORDER

SI/2013-24 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 7, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2013-25 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY AFTER THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH DIVISION 4 OF PART 4 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2013-27 — LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK (DECISIONS NOT TO ADD CERTAIN SPECIES) ORDER

SI/2013-28 — LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK (REFERRAL BACK TO COSEWIC) ORDER

SI/2013-42 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

SOR/2011-157 — ORDER AMENDING THE IMPORT CONTROL LIST AND REPEALING THE EUROPEAN UNION SURTAX ORDER

SOR/2012-250 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES WATERS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-20 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND REPEALING THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-23 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE OLD AGE SECURITY REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-30 — ORDER 2012-87-12-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-31 — ORDER 2012-66-12-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-33 — ORDER EXTENDING EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA'S TEMPORARY DOMESTIC POWERS

SOR/2013-34 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 TO THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT

SOR/2013-35 — EXEMPTION ORDER FOR CERTAIN LICENCES, AUTHORIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS (WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT (ALBERTA POPULATION))

SOR/2013-37 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE FISHERIES ACT

SOR/2013-38 — YUKON BORROWING LIMITS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-39 — NORTHWEST TERRITORIES BORROWING LIMITS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-40 — NUNAVUT BORROWING LIMITS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-41 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE APPLICATION OF PROVINCIAL LAWS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-43 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2013-1

SOR/2013-45 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-46 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2013-55 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (STANDARD 126)

SOR/2013-57 — ORDER 2013-87-02-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-59 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS FISCAL AND STATISTICAL MANAGEMENT ACT

SOR/2013-63 — RECONSIDERATION REQUEST REGULATIONS

Mr. Bernhardt: Just a note that Item No. 23 makes 29 amendments the committee had requested and for the record, there is a list of 28 instruments that have been reviewed and there are no comments.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there anything else from the committee before we adjourn?

Mr. Breitkreuz: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our co-chairs very much for the efficient way in which they run the meetings. They have done an excellent job. As well, on behalf of everybody here, I would like to thank the staff of the committee for the tremendous work they do and wish them all a really good summer break.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): On that very pleasant note, meeting adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)

---