---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 6 - Evidence - December 15, 2011

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, December 15, 2011

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:32 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator Bob Runciman (Joint Chair) and Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Vice-Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): There was a request at the last meeting for a report from counsel on some of the more tardy respondents to the committee. At the end of our regular business, the committee will go in camera and counsel will provide his oral report, after which we can have a discussion about some of the laggards.

THIRD REPORT — Species at Risk Act, report No. 81

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 6A:1.)

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: A note in the materials explains that this report was tabled in 2008. It dealt with what seemed to the committee to be a flaw in the Species at Risk Act. Under the act, when the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada completes an assessment on the status of a species, it provides the minister with a copy. The act also says that within nine months after receiving an assessment, the Governor-in-Council has to review it. The Governor-in-Council can then add the species to the list of species at risk or decide not to add it to the list or refer the matter back. If the Governor-in-Council does not take action within nine months, the minister is required to amend the list in accordance with the assessment. That is done by regulation.

Although the act provides for a nine-month period for taking action, it begins on receipt by the Governor-in- Council of the assessment. In fact, there is nothing in the act that actually provides for the Governor-in-Council ever getting the assessment. It seemed to the committee that if there was discretion as to when to pass on the assessment or even whether to pass on the assessment, then the intent of the act that there be a decision in a certain period of time could be defeated. The third report recommended an amendment to the Species at Risk Act to resolve this.

The SRA was subject to a parliamentary review five years after it was made, which was undertaken by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in the last Parliament. The committee brought its concern to the attention of the chair of that committee as well as the chair of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. It also seems that this issue was identified by a number of other witnesses who came before that committee. Unfortunately, the committee was unable to table a report prior to dissolution. We have made some inquiries, and it seems that there is no indication that the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee intends to take this up again, that it considers its review completed, and that it will not be seized of the matter again.

The question for members of this committee today is whether there is unfinished business on this file. If it is felt that there is unfinished business, one possibility might be to write to the department to see if they are contemplating any amendments as a result of issues identified before the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee in the last Parliament.

Mr. Saxton: If we did nothing, what would they do? Would they also do nothing?

Mr. Bernhardt: I do not know.

Mr. Saxton: As far as they are concerned, is the case closed?

Mr. Bernhardt: As far as the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee is concerned, the case is closed. A considerable amount of work was done by that committee; they heard from many witnesses. They were at a draft report stage at dissolution. In the course of that, I assume the department was paying attention to what was going on, so they may have plans as a result of what was identified; but I do not know. It may be that they have simply decided they will not touch the Species at Risk Act.

Mr. Saxton: Perhaps we should follow counsel's advice and find out what their intentions are so that we know for certain.

Hon. Members: Are members agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-39 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE VETERANS HEALTH CARE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 6B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): This item, which has been before the committee seven times over five years, has been addressed in Bill C-13.

SOR/97-6 — FEEDS REGULATIONS, 1983, AMENDMENT

SOR/97-9 — SEEDS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/2001-274 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 6C:1.)

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: The provisions in question regulate the release into the environment of novel feeds and plants with novel traits, but there is a lack of enabling authority to do so under the Feeds Act and the Seeds Act.

Following the committee's last consideration of these instruments, the joint chairs wrote to the Minister of Agriculture in October 2010 asking whether statutory amendments would be introduced in Parliament that autumn. A reply dated March 28, 2011, was prepared but, ultimately, lost somewhere in the mail system. Consequently, it was not received until November 2011 when the minister forwarded a copy of the letter.

That letter is before the committee today. In it the minister reaffirms his commitment to introducing legislation amending the Feeds Act and the Seeds Act as soon as possible, but he states he cannot provide a time frame in which this will happen. To date, the promised amendments have not been introduced in Parliament.

It is open to members as to how they wish to proceed at this time. Given that the minister's last substantive reply dates from the spring, perhaps an update could be sought at this time.

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

Mr. Saxton: An update would be helpful; so we should ask for that.

Mr. Brown: I would suggest that we give the minister appropriate time to provide us with an update — similar to what Mr. Saxton said.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are you suggesting an appropriate time frame?

Mr. Brown: We should stress the importance of getting an update and understand that they are crammed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Okay. Are we all in agreement with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-284 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix D, p. 6D:1)

Mr. Bernhardt: SOR/2003-284 repealed a provision in the regulations that required an elevator operator to automatically issue a cash purchase ticket after 90 days.

The idea behind this change was to remove a requirement that there be automatic payment in full to grain producers within 90 days of delivery to the elevator. Unfortunately, on the committee's reading of section 68.1 of the Canada Grain Act, there was a requirement that there be a fixed period.

The solution put forward by the government was to repeal section 68.1, which would have solved the problem. In fact, that amendment was part of two bills including other amendments to the Canada Grain Act that were introduced. Unfortunately, both bills died on the Order Paper.

Most recently, on November 28, the minister advised that the government is reflecting on events in reviewing its proposals to modernize the act. This was identical to the state of affairs that was reported the previous November.

In this case, I am not sure that the committee has much choice but to be patient. Perhaps the file could be brought forward in the spring and an update sought at that time, assuming that there is no legislation by then; there may well be.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): But no indication that it is forthcoming?

Mr. Bernhardt: No.

Mr. Albas: I agree with what counsel said.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Accepting the advice of counsel, we will wait until the spring. We will bring it forward to the committee at that time and look for an update from the ministry.

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

(For text of document, see Appendix E, p. 6E:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: These are new regulations but the issue is an ongoing one. It initially arose in the predecessor to these regulations.

In question here are provisions that require surfaces of certain metallic parts of seat belt assemblies to have no rust that can be transferred to people's clothing. There are also requirements relating to colour fastness, colour transferability and staining from webbing from seat belts.

Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a vehicle to which a national safety mark is applied must conform to the applicable standards set out in the regulations. The act defines a standard to mean a standard governing design, construction, functioning or marketing of vehicles or equipment for the purpose of reducing the risk of death, injury or property damage from vehicle use. The committee has questioned whether this authorizes standards that were created on the basis of protecting people's clothes.

As I said, the original regulations that gave rise to the issue have now been replaced by these. These regulations do not directly contain these requirements, but they are referentially incorporated from a standard that the department has put out, so the problem remains.

The department's argument is that encouraging people to use seat belts is a safety related issue. On the other hand, for the committee, whether components retain their colour or will or will not fade over time has nothing to do with the safety of the system per se. The belt is equally safe one way or the other. The inherent qualities of the belt will not change. It is obviously an admirable goal, but it falls outside the scope of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The minister's February 8 letter agreed to the extent that requiring the webbing of a seat belt to not transfer colour to clothing or stain people's clothing could be viewed as not directly related to safety. The assurance was given that those provisions would be repealed.

In fact, on November 26, after the note was written, there were amendments pre-published in Part I of the Canada Gazette that would not only remove the staining and colour fast requirements, but would also take out the colour fading requirements that the minister had defended in his letter. The position had obviously moved forward since February.

All that being the case, the one aspect that is left is the corrosion provision. The minister's letter suggests that the provision stating that there not be rust on a seat belt that can stain people's clothes is interconnected with requirements for the strength of the belt.

It is obvious that rust weakens metal, but those provisions dealing with strength tests for belts are elsewhere in the regulations. I think there is a legitimate question here. If the concern is the strength of the belt, why is the test phrased in terms of rust that will not stain people's clothes?

I would suggest that issue still remains. Given that the minister's position seems to be evolving even since February from what was pre-published in November — there has been a change on one aspect — perhaps another letter to the minister would lead to a result.

The Joint Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): If I could make that suggestion, maybe that is what we could do — follow up and see if the minister will address this issue, if that is okay with the committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Dionne-Labelle: I find your thinking very relevant. There are incongruities like that; it seems to me that this relates more to the Consumer Protection Bureau than to safety issues.

[English]

SOR/2005-173 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, IV, V AND VII)

(For text of document, see Appendix F, p. 6F:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Twelve points were raised initially in a letter dated February 26, 2009. The department replied on December 3, 2009. That was a partial response.

On several matters, parts of point 3, and points 7 and 9, the department promised to provide a full response shortly. It still has not done so. As of this September, the department said it was still reviewing these matters and was unable to specify when the review would be completed.

As I say, it is coming up on three years that the department has been reviewing the first letter. Perhaps at this point, it might be the wish of the joint chairs to write to the minister and ask for his cooperation in ensuring that the department provides a response. At the same time, perhaps some of the matters on which a response was provided could also be followed up and further details sought. Those are the various points set out in the note.

To try to briefly highlight some of those, point 1 concerns provisions that require an organization to appoint an individual to be accountable on behalf of the organization with respect to the regulations. This gave rise to a number of questions.

In its response, the department stated that if this accountable executive did not perform in a satisfactory manner, the organization's certificates could be suspended. However, it seems that this person reports only within his own organization. Therefore, you have a situation where the executive is not performing in a satisfactory manner according to his employer; yet the department is saying that the consequence of being an unsatisfactory employee is that they will revoke the employer's certificate. It all seems a bit of an odd fit. I think more questions need to be asked there.

They also make the statement that the position of accountable executive will not involve any risk of personal liability. This seems to contradict the Aeronautics Act, which stipulates that anyone who contravenes any regulation is guilty of an offence. I think there we have as many questions raised by the reply as it answered.

On point 3, there was one issue on which the department has not provided a reply to date, which is the fact that there are fines imposed for not adhering to the safety management system. This is a system that the organization itself creates and puts in place.

Again, the act makes it an offence to contravene the act, a regulation, notice, order or security measure. This management system is none of those. It is similar to the issue that the committee has seen in the past concerning offences for contravening terms and conditions of licences that the committee has objected to. As I say, that is one of the points on which we have yet to get a response.

There is also little indication in the regulations as to what actually must go into this safety management system. The department's reply is not very helpful.

Point 4 deals with another rather odd provision. It states that the certificate holder shall authorize the person responsible for the maintenance control system to take aircraft out of operation where that is justified.

One wonders why the regulation should not say that the person responsible can do that, as opposed to requiring his employer to authorize him to do it. It seems a rather convoluted way to get to the same end. The department's explanation refers to a number of requirements that are not in the regulations, giving rise to the question of where these come from, what is their source, and status?

Finally, point 5 requires the certificate holder to ensure that the responsible person has knowledge of the relevant topics and can demonstrate that to the minister. We asked what degree of knowledge and precisely what kinds of knowledge were required.

Again, there is a reference to various requirements that are found nowhere in the regulations.

Points 4 to 12 raise similar issues to those in other contexts throughout the regulations.

To make a long story short, there are two aspects here. One is the number of questions and unanswered questions that all this still gives rise to. The other is the fact that on several points, coming up on three years now, we still have not been able to get a reply out of the department at all.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Does that cover all of the items related to the Canadian Aviation Regulations?

SOR/2005-348 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND V)

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 6G:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: The situation on the next file, 2005-348, is identical. There are fewer issues, but some are the same issues. They are companion pieces, if you will.

Mr. Albas: I appreciate you raising that. When I studied both notes, they deal with the same act and they almost deal with identical points. Would it not make sense for us to deal with these as one particular file versus two?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Mr. Albas: Could we go through the second one and then wrap them up together?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we in agreement with a letter to the co-chairs.

Senator Moore: To the minister, chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): To the minister?

Senator Moore: Yes.

Mr. Albas: If this means both files would have the same response I would be in support of that. This has taken a while and we need to see this wrapped up.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We are agreed.

SOR/2000-187 — AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-183 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-256 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 6H:1.)

Mr. Abel: As the note before members indicates, counsel pursued some 13 points since the committee considered this file in 2007 following the satisfactory resolution of 38 other points. An exchange of detailed correspondence has culminated in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's letters of September 24, 2010 and October 11, 2011 which propose amendments to the Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations that would resolve all but two of the remaining points.

In connection with one of those two remaining issues, an amendment to the act is promised in order to correct a discrepancy between the French and English versions of subsection 11(3).

On the other issue, it is suggested that the agency's reply on section 17(l) is satisfactory. This concern arose from the designation of only a portion of a provision as a violation that could be proceeded with administratively. The proportion of the provision so designated does not expressly impose a duty on any person. Rather, it empowers an inspector to order that certain premises be cleaned and disinfected.

The question arose has to how someone could be found in violation of a provision that simply grants powers to an inspector. The agency contends there is a clear implication that those orders would have to be followed by the person to which they are directed.

In light of the full wording of subsection 106(7) which is set out in the note, this does seem acceptable.

Finally, on the promised amendments I would draw members' attention to point 17(d) which is discussed in the note. The agency has promised to address the committee's concern that section 13 of the regulations is over broad in its relation requirements concerning false and misleading information on health certificates and import permits. However, the agency's October 11 letter also seems to indicate they wish to retain the full breadth of that provision in some manner.

In short, their intentions are unclear and could probably be clarified. If members so wish, counsel could follow-up on the progress of the amendments to the act and the regulations and seek clarification on that one point.

Senator Frum: I would support that recommendation. It sounds like they have addressed almost everything and have just one remaining point that needs clarification.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/77-595 — COUNTING OF SERVICE BY FORMER MEMBERS OF THE SENATE OR HOUSE OF COMMONS REGULATIONS, NO. 2

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 6I:1.)

Mr. Abel: On this file, I have the rare opportunity of saying this instrument is senior to me by six months. This committee has, for over 30 years, pursued amendments relating to medical examinations required under these regulations. It is worth noting that these regulations apply solely to former members of the Senate or House of Commons who later serve with the RCMP and elect to move their pensionable contributions.

This has never happened and the regulations have, therefore, never actually been applied.

Nonetheless, the concerns identified by the committee in far-off times include the lack of enabling authority and unauthorized sub-delegation. As the correspondence today indicates, amendments to these regulations are expected to move forward with the completion of related amendments to the RCMP superannuation regulations. It does appear that the long saga of this file is coming to a close, but this appearance has happened in the past more than once. Therefore this time I would suggest seeking an update as to where they are on bringing this file to an end.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Keep your fingers crossed.

Senator Moore: Can we put a time frame on when this will happen? Would you agree with that, co-chairs?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): That sounds fine.

Mr. Pacetti: May I move that when Senator Moore retires from the Senate, he be the first one to enter the RCMP and see if this regulation is actually going to come into force?

Senator Moore: Their letterhead says, ``Guided by Integrity, Honesty, Professionalism, Compassion, Respect and Accountability.''

SOR/2007-50 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ONSHORE PIPELINE REGULATIONS, 1999 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 6J:1.)

Mr. Abel: This file deals with one provision. The committee has, for a time, sought clarification of section 6 of these regulations. The National Energy Board originally was delaying an amendment to await the publication of a standard. They intended to incorporate that standard in order to clarify the provision. A standard has since been published and there were further delays. Consequently, on March 3, the committee decided to request of the board that the amendment go forward within a reasonable time, either in conjunction with other planned amendments or independently.

The latest correspondence from the board dated September 26 indicates that in conjunction with other amendments, their expected time frame is completion sometime in 2013. The question is whether this is acceptable for members as is. If it is, we will seek a further update as to progress.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we in agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/90-576 — ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 6K:1.)

Mr. Abel: Two issues of French/English equivalency were identified concerning this instrument. Although the department originally intended to correct these errors by the end of 2010, the expected completion date was later moved in order to accommodate the making of other amendments to the regulations at the same time. The amendments are now expected to be pre-published in Part I of the Canada Gazette in 2012.

Given that the most recent letter dates from October, counsel can perhaps inquire at the start of the new year as to progress on this file.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Do we all agree with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-75 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS, 2001

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 6L:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Section 263 of the Canada Business Corporations Act states that every corporation must file an annual return on the prescribed date.

The regulations require that the annual return be submitted within 60 days after the anniversary date of incorporation.

The problem is this does not prescribe a date; it prescribes a period of 60 days within which the filing must take place.

At the same time, it has always seemed to the committee that the intent of the Canada Business Corporations Act probably was never to require that every corporation send in its annual return on the same day. The committee therefore concluded that section 263 of the CBCA was flawed and should be amended to state that the annual return must be filed within the prescribed period. In 2007, the Department of Industry agreed to do that when the opportunity presented itself. To date, apparently there has not been such an opportunity.

The department characterizes the matter in its last correspondence of one of a discrepancy between the act and the regulations. It bears keeping in mind, I suppose, that even accepting that the problem is technical arising from a flaw in the act, the result of this discrepancy is that the regulation is unlawful. Therefore, it is not a situation that should continue indefinitely.

Perhaps it could be suggested to the department that if amendments to the act are not anticipated for the near future, it might explore going to the Department of Justice to ask whether there will be a bill under the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program in the near future and, if there is, whether this could be included.

At one time the department indicated it would explore that option, but it never told the committee whether it had done that and what the result was.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): What kind of action do you suggest we take?

Mr. Bernhardt: I would suggest just a letter to the department noting that the opportunity has not arisen to date, asking if there will be an opportunity in the near future and, if not, suggesting that perhaps they look at the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program.

Mr. Pacetti: In terms of an assurance, why does this file need a change in the statutes? Is that what I understood?

Mr. Bernhardt: When the committee examined this file in 2007, it noted that the regulation did not conform to what the CBCA requires. However, when it looked at the act, the committee concluded that probably what was contemplated was the sort of thing that the regulations did. That is to say: You will have a period relating to your date of incorporation for filing the annual return.

Mr. Pacetti: Is the problem within the act and not necessarily with the regulation or the interpretation of the regulation?

Mr. Bernhardt: They are both quite clear, and they do conflict but, in this case, it seemed to the committee that the regulation was probably what Parliament intended when it put that provision in the act. This was a situation where the act should be amended to allow for the regulation rather than the regulation amended to conform with the act.

Mr. Pacetti: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): The suggested action is to send a letter. Do we all agree?

Senator Moore: For clarification, what will the letter say?

Mr. Bernhardt: First, it will ask whether there will be amendments coming forward soon.

Senator Moore: If the answer is no, will it suggest that they consider the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act process?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, that might be a way they could explore.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-484—RADIOCOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS

SOR/98-437 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE RADIOCOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS

SOR/99-107 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE RADIOCOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2001-533 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE RADIOCOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 6M:1.)

Mr. Abel: The correspondence before members today culminates in an agreement in Industry Canada's letter of November 3 to recommend to the deputy minister that subsection 52(1) of these regulations be amended. As the correspondence covers in some detail, there is an inconsistent use of language between sections 52(1) and 53(2), which suggests that 52(1) should be clarified in order to indicate more accurately the specific equipment that can be subject to a minister's order under that provision.

The department now being in agreement, confirmation at this time could be sought that an amendment will be forthcoming.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Are there comments or questions? Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): It has been suggested that we deal with Items 8, 9 and 10 as one group. Members have the agenda before them. These are: Action Promised, Action Taken and Statutory Instruments Without Comment.

SI/2009-56 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 6N:1.)

SOR/2007-133 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND VII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix O p. 6O:1.)

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 6P:1.)

SOR/2011-179 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE TOBACCO PRODUCTS INFORMATION REGULATIONS

For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 6Q:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under Action Promised, 11 specific amendments have been promised in connection with the four instruments. As always, we will follow up on those after the meeting.

In particular, there are promised amendments to the Canadian Passport Order that will enshrine in law the current policy by which the maximum period for which passport service can be withheld is five years following a decision to refuse or revoke a passport. There will also be clarification of the circumstances in which a passport can be revoked.

As well, there are amendments to two National Parks regulations that will put some parameters on the discretion granted to park superintendents.

I should also note that SOR/2010-140 and SOR/2011-179 together made 23 amendments that had been promised to the committee.

SI/2010-83 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (DEHCHO FIRST NATIONS) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix R p. 6R:1.)

SI/2011-85 — ORDER AMENDING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL, SETTING APART AND APPROPRIATION OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (REINDEER GRAZING RESERVE) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 6S:1.)

SI/2011-86 — ORDER AMENDING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (SAOYÚ-ÆEHDACHO (GRIZZLY BEAR MOUNTAIN AND SCENTED GRASS HILLS) NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 6T:1.)

SOR/2010-71 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 6U:1)

SOR/2011-152 — ORDER 2011-87-07-05 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2011-153 — ORDER 2011-112-07-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 6V:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under Action Taken, the six instruments listed make another 20 amendments that the committee had requested.

SI/2011-75 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE ``FIRE PREVENTION WEEK''

SOR/2007-35 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (PRESCRIBED FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR WOODLOTS)

SOR/2009-231 — OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-22—REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NOTIFIABLE TRANSACTIONS REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-81 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-164 — ORDER 2010-87-08-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2010-174 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NOVA SCOTIA AND NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR ADDITIONAL FISCAL EQUALIZATION OFFSET PAYMENTS REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-193 — ORDER 2010-87-09-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2010-198 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY EMPLOYMENT REGULATIONS, 2010

SOR/2010-204 — ORDER 2010-87-10-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2010-209 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-224 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SURFACE COATING MATERIALS REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-225 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (SURFACE COATING MATERIALS)

SOR/2010-248 — ORDER 2010-87-04-03 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2010-249 — ORDER 2010-87-08-03 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2010-263 — ORDER AMENDING THE DESIGNER REMISSION ORDER, 2001

SOR/2010-272 — ORDER AMENDING PART II OF SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTAINING LEAD — CONTACT WITH MOUTH)

SOR/2010-273 — CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTAINING LEAD (CONTACT WITH MOUTH) REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-275 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GUN SHOWS REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-286 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INTERNATIONAL LETTER-POST ITEMS REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-297 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT (PHTHALATES)

SOR/2010-298 — PHTHALATES REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-2 — ORDER 2010-87-12-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2011-29 — -ORDER 2011-87-01-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2011-32 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (2009 LIVESTOCK DEFERRAL)

SOR/2011-36 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, NO. 2010-2

SOR/2011-59 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CENTRAL REGISTRY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-77 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING REGULATIONS, 1987

SOR/2011-82 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEDICAL DEVICES REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-90 — RELEASE AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-91 — DEPOSIT OUT OF THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS NOTIFICATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-95 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-123 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-133 — CCOFTA TARIFF PREFERENCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-142 — REGULATIONS DESIGNATING A BODY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARAGRAPH 91(2) (C) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

SOR/2011-145 — ORDER 2011-87-06-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2011-165 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2011-176 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (ESDILAGH)

Mr. Bernhardt: Under Statutory Instruments Without Comment, 38 instruments are listed that counsel has reviewed and has found to comply with all of the committee's criteria. Copies of those are available this morning if any member wishes to have a look at them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Thank you very much.

Before we move in camera for the oral briefing, does anyone have a comment? We will suspend for a moment and move in camera.

(The committee continued in camera.)

---