REGS Committee Meeting

---

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, April 29, 2024

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met with videoconference this day at 11:10 a.m. [ET] to conduct a review of Statutory Instruments.

Mr. Dan Albas and Senator Yuen Pau Woo (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Good morning, colleagues.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all senators, MPs and other meeting participants of the following important preventative measures: To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29 — I presume to MPs as well — the following measures have been taken to prevent audio feedback incidents: First of all, all earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use an approved black earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the round sticker that you see in front of you on the table. Please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please ensure you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Participants must only plug in their earpieces to the microphone console located directly in front of them.

These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption, and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your cooperation.

With that, let’s move right into our agenda. The first item is “Letters to and from Ministers.”

SOR/2018-276 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 17A:1.)

Geoffrey Hilton, Counsel to the Committee: In this file, the committee had been waiting on assurances from both the Minister of Public Services, Procurement and Accessibility and the Clerk of the Privy Council that certain timeline requirements of theirs under the Canada Post Corporation Act be met more promptly.

To explain, the act imposes certain timeline requirements on both the minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council in the making of regulations under the act. First, the minister must “forthwith” send a copy of any proposed regulations after they are prepublished in Part I of the Canada Gazette to the Governor-in-Council for consideration, while the Clerk of the Privy Council must then “forthwith” send a letter acknowledging receipt of regulations to Canada Post.

At issue was the term “forthwith.” Such a term, while routinely found in statutes and regulations, is inherently vague and subjective, and it provides no actual guidance to what is specifically required of any person who must do something “forthwith.” In this case, the minister’s and Clerk of the Privy Council’s requirements were technically complied with — in that the specific actions that needed to be done were completed — but it could not really be said that they were completed “forthwith” since correspondence eventually revealed that significant time had elapsed between when each of the requirements commenced and when they were completed.

The last time the committee considered this file, in June 2019, members directed that a letter be sent to both the minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council to seek their assurances that their respective timeline requirements be met more promptly in the future. In response, the Privy Council acknowledged that delays had occurred in the fulfillment of the Clerk of the Privy Council’s timeline requirements and that it had accordingly modified its internal procedures to avoid such delays in the future. Members may accordingly wish to consider the Privy Council’s response satisfactory.

However, no assurance or response has ever been received from the minister’s office.

This being the case, there are a few options on how to proceed. The first option could be to simply close the file, given the satisfactory response by the Privy Council and considering that the current minister may not necessarily be in a position to respond to delays encountered by their predecessor from six years ago when these regulations were made.

The second option would be to still close the file but that the joint chairs also send a letter to the current minister expressing dissatisfaction with the committee’s letter to the then-minister having gone unanswered and/or with any other comments members may have. To clarify, with this option, the file would not be brought back before the committee. It would be more to simply communicate the committee’s displeasure regarding this file to the minister without expecting a response in return.

Finally, a third option would be to keep the file open and pursue a response from the current minister, in which case the file would be brought back before the committee with an eventual update.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you, Mr. Hilton. We have three options, but members may have other ideas to offer.

Mr. Webber: Thanks to counsel for the vigilance on this. It has been six years, so it has been a long time.

You say that the term “forthwith” is vague and subjective. If you look up the word “forthwith” in the dictionary, it says it means “immediately, without delay or hesitation, with no time intervening.” To me, I find that not to be vague or subjective. I don’t understand why they would use that as an excuse for their delays.

There have been four ministers since this letter was sent out, and I think it would be difficult for the current minister to make excuses for a minister six years ago, so I would consider option one and just close the file. Anything in the future that occurs can come back to this committee with a response from us if there are any delays. I would say close the file.

Mr. Johns: I am looking for some clarification. It took four ministers, no response — in the future, we should consider looking at deadlines every time we send a request to a minister. That would be prudent, given this negligence in terms of ministers completely blowing us off in this committee. It’s just absolutely unbelievable that four ministers have gone by and there has been no response. They completely disregard this committee. A deadline in all correspondence with ministers would be critical moving forward.

Mr. Louis: In my notes, I had said pretty much the same thing Mr. Johns said. Moving forward, to stop this from happening in the future, if we can stop the bleeding, we can ask for specific timelines. Sometimes, people wait until the timeline to do things, but at least we would have something there. I would agree with that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Are there any other comments? Is it agreed that we go with option one but that we make a note that future correspondence to ministers and others impose a firm deadline for responses?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): It is agreed. Let’s move on to the next item.

[Translation]

SI/2019-105 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF (1) CANADIAN HERITAGE; (2) INDUSTRY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

SI/2019-107 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

SI/2019-108 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 17B:1.)

Mr. Hilton: I have some good news for the committee members. The Privy Council has honoured its commitment to proactively inform the committee whenever the department is designated to provide support to one of the three additional unnamed ministers entitled to support under the Salaries Act.

To explain, under the act, the Governor in Council may designate a department to provide support to a minister.

However, the ministers mentioned in these orders did not hold any of the ministerial positions specifically listed in the act that, by default, would be entitled to support from a department.

That said, the law also provides that support may be given to “three additional ministers” who are not on the list of ministers in the act.

It was therefore necessary for legal advisors to confirm with the Privy Council that the ministers mentioned in these orders were all considered to be one of the three unnamed ministers entitled to support.

In response, the Privy Council confirmed that this was indeed the case.

Moreover, given that these types of orders are made quite frequently, the committee also asked the Privy Council if it would be willing to inform the committee each time a department is designated to provide support to one of the three additional unnamed ministers entitled to support. This would spare the committee from having to approach the Privy Council every time such an order is made.

The Privy Council finally agreed to this commitment.

The Privy Council honoured this commitment for the first time by proactively informing the committee in a letter dated December 2023 that the Department of Employment and Social Development had been designated to provide support to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who was now one of the three additional unnamed ministers entitled to support under the act.

There is one small problem, however: The Privy Council had indicated that it would send its proactive letter within 3 to 5 working days of the order designating the support. Unfortunately, in this case, 130 days elapsed between the new order being made and the Privy Council sending its proactive letter.

In any event, obtaining this permanent commitment from the Privy Council is still a positive achievement for the committee, and honouring this commitment represents an improvement on the part of the Privy Council in terms of procedure.

It is therefore recommended that these three matters be closed.

However, if the committee members wish, the closure letter to the Privy Council could include a statement that the committee expects the Privy Council to meet its commitment more quickly in the future.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I think it might be a good idea to close and to write the letter to ask that they be more prompt in responding. Is there any disagreement with that? Okay. Let’s do that.

Moving on to the category “Reply Unsatisfactory.”

SOR/2014-198 — FIREARMS RECORDS REGULATIONS (CLASSIFICATION)

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 17C:1.)

Mr. Hilton: The committee here is still waiting on the repeal of these regulations, the Firearms Records Regulations (Classification).

For background, these regulations, made in 2014, appear to impose a simple record-keeping requirement on the Registrar of Firearms under the authority to regulate the keeping and destruction of firearm records in relation to firearms under the Firearms Act. However, this record-keeping requirement either appeared to have little practical consequence or their intended effect exceeded the scope of the authority relied upon under the Firearms Act.

This question was never resolved, though, since the Department of Public Safety indicated in 2017 that it intended on repealing the regulations. Since then, the repeal has constantly been delayed.

At first, the department said it intended on repealing the regulations as part of its Forward Regulatory Plan, 2017-2019. Then in early 2019, it said it wanted to wait until Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, received Royal Assent before proceeding with the repeal. Then, after Bill C-71 received Royal Assent in June 2019, it said that other regulatory changes were still required to implement the bill, but that the repeal could be included with those changes. Those regulatory changes were then made in April 2022, but they did not include the repeal of the regulations.

Now, in its most recent letter from July 2023, the department states that its legislative and regulatory work are currently focused on addressing firearms violence, but forthcoming regulatory changes could include the repeal of the regulations.

In sum, the department is once again saying that other work needs to be completed before the repeal can take place. It is not clear why this continues to be the case, though, since according to the department’s own current Forward Regulatory Plan, the repeal has “. . . no expected impacts on stakeholders, firearms users or firearms businesses.”

At this point, the time it has taken the department to make the repeal — seven years — is now well beyond what the committee considers reasonable. Members may thus wish to consider the full breadth of powers available to the committee.

The first option could be for the joint chairs to send a letter to the Minister of Public Safety. The second option could be for either the minister or departmental officials to be invited to appear before the committee. The third option would be for the committee to issue a notice of disallowance to the minister, a draft of which has been included in the supporting materials for consideration.

For newer members, issuing a Notice of Disallowance begins the disallowance process, which is a process under section 19.1 of the Statutory Instruments Act that, if followed through, would force the regulation maker — the Governor-in-Council in this case — to repeal the regulations. A flowchart explaining the disallowance process is included in the materials following the draft notice, but for members’ benefit, I will briefly explain how it works.

First, the committee must issue the notice of disallowance to the minister, which states the committee’s intention of considering a report containing a resolution for the disallowance, or repeal, of the regulations. Once the notice is issued, the committee must then wait a minimum of 30 calendar days before proceeding to consider adopting a report containing the disallowance resolution. This is to allow the minister or their department to respond or to take any action resolving the committee’s concerns. After 30 calendar days, the file would be brought back before the committee with any updates, at which point members would decide whether they wish to adopt the report containing the disallowance resolution.

For clarity, the committee is not obligated to adopt this report following the issuance of a notice of disallowance if members are satisfied with developments in the file.

As some members will recall recently in the committee’s file with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations, simply issuing a notice often serves as a useful tool in spurring the regulation-maker into taking action without the subsequent adoption of a report containing a disallowance resolution.

If members are not satisfied with developments in the file the next time the file is before the committee, members could decide to adopt and table in both houses the report containing the disallowance resolution. If the report is tabled, the disallowance resolution would be deemed adopted by each house after 15 sitting days have passed in that house, unless a minister files a motion opposing its adoption. If such a motion is filed in either or both houses, the appropriate house must then meet on the next Wednesday for a debate and vote on the motion.

For disallowance to take effect, the resolution must be adopted or deemed adopted in both houses. If the disallowance resolution is adopted in both houses, the Governor-in-Council must then repeal the regulations within 30 calendar days.

For now, though, the only thing for members to consider for this option is if they wish to begin this process and issue the notice of disallowance to the minister.

Mr. Davidson: Hit your alarm, it’s Groundhog Day again. This is like Punxsutawney Phil coming back to haunt this committee.

This is the government doing business badly again, and I think we saw the success given the notice of disallowance the last time that we used one. I think there is no choice, after seven years, to use it here. It’s completely unreasonable that they haven’t dealt with this. Even their excuses go counter to what the truth of the matter is on this. I would definitely support a notice of disallowance on this.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you.

Mr. Louis: I wouldn’t go that far yet. When I looked at this, the last letter came in June 2023. That was before Bill C-21 had Royal Assent. This has been a very active space legislatively and regulation-wise with Bill C-71 and Bill C-21, but I agree that it has been too long and we haven’t heard anything. Bill C-71 took about two years to be implemented, and Bill C-21 got Royal Assent in December, so things are moving fast.

I would suggest that we ask the departmental officials to come in. They would have that institutional memory that goes back further and that can go back to Bill C-71. I would like to hear from them. I think that might be a reasonable solution.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): So you support recommendation 2, calling the officials in.

Mr. Louis: Yes, sir.

Mr. Webber: Of course, I support a notice of disallowance to the minister. This has gotten the attention of the minister in the past, where the minister’s office and her staff responded immediately. I think that by sending a notice of disallowance, it will expedite minister’s actions and answer our questions. I would certainly ask for a notice of disallowance.

Mr. Davidson: Was there a third option to call the minister here?

Mr. Hilton: The first option was for the joint chairs to write to the minister, which would not involve inviting the minister. The second option would be to invite the minister or departmental officials. The third option was to pursue disallowance by issuing the notice of disallowance.

Mr. Davidson: I think it’s reasonable to pursue the disallowance.

After seven years, I think government members should not want the bureaucrats to be pushing around a minister in not getting things done. They’re unelected officials. Tim, with all due respect, I appreciate your comments, but this was June 2023. It has been almost a year now. To say that things have been moving fast after seven years — and after June 2023 — to get this done isn’t a big ask.

A lot of people look at this committee as a joke. If it’s going to have any power whatsoever, I think we immediately move for disallowance and let them know that this committee doesn’t play around with these things.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I have a question to counsel on timing. If a notice was to be sent to the minister, let’s say immediately or forthwith, to Mr. Webber’s point, that would be 30 days from that letter being sent. It seems logical that we wouldn’t be speaking about this until September. Could you go through the timeline and what that would mean for our committee process? Would the department have all summer to deal with this issue?

Mr. Hilton: If the notice were to be issued today or in the coming days, the 30-day notice period would end on Wednesday, May 29, May 30 or May 31. The committee could theoretically consider the reports at the earliest on Monday, June 3, or the subsequent week, June 10. If the report is considered, adopted and then subsequently tabled at that time, there are not enough sitting days left in the House for the 15 deemed adopted days to pass. But that wouldn’t stop the timeline. It would just re-continue following the return from the summer adjournment.

If that were to be done, then the consideration of the report could be done in June, but the process would only be able to be continued and finalized in the fall.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: I’m not interested in bringing officials in. I don’t want to spend the time talking on such a narrow fine point. I like banging heads more than the next guy, but I’m not interested in wasting our time on this.

I am curious about when we meet next, because I am more inclined to send a letter out stating that we are going to issue a notice of disallowance at our next meeting if no action is taken in the meantime. We can then unanimously agree a notice of disallowance next time instead of having a fractious debate today. It’s a difference of about four weeks or so. I don’t really know, but I’m not opposed to a notice of disallowance. This is the first time I have dealt with this. At this point, I would be more comfortable with a letter that sets out a short timeline and says, “We are going to pursue this more aggressively if you don’t get your house in order.” However, it would be good to know when we meet next so I understand the timeline in that regard.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): We will meet at least once more. The likelihood of a June meeting is not great for all the reasons of which we are aware. If the notice of disallowance goes out today, the next day or in the couple of days, it will hit that 30-day target at either the end of May or early June. From my interpretation of Mr. Hilton’s comments, it’s likely that it would have to be picked up again in the fall.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: In light of that timeline, I would be fine issuing the notice of disallowance at our next meeting if there has been no action in the meantime. However, I would be more comfortable with sending a letter because this is the first time I have picked this up. I’m open to hearing from other people. It has been seven years. I don’t know why we are tripping over ourselves over a matter of 30 more days.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Your proposal is to issue a strong letter with a firm deadline — that is, a last chance before notice of disallowance.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: Exactly.

Mr. Zuberi: Yes. I think that’s a good suggestion as long as the timelines are reasonable and gives the department the time they need to get their house in order. As long as we are giving them the time that’s needed, then this threat would make sense. If they don’t respect it, then we’ll go into disallowance anyway, which is our maximal tool from what I understand. We should use our maximal tool sparingly. The threat of it is good. We’ll express seriousness about it once we put it to paper.

Mr. Johns: This falls in line with what I said earlier about setting a deadline. I like the idea from Mr. Erskine-Smith. Moving forward, this sends a signal to all the departments and all the ministers that we are going to put a deadline on every request moving forward and if they don’t adhere to it, then we’ll bring in the sledgehammer. I’ll support this but with the deadline indicated on that letter.

Mr. Carrie: I want to say how thrilled I am to be part of this committee.

I want to point out that the average length that a member of Parliament is elected and serves in the House of Commons is five years. It has now been seven years. This is way overdue. If this committee wants to keep our credibility, we have to move with the tools that we have to most strongly tell the minister’s office that we need to have this done immediately. I’m very supportive of the notice of disallowance and the sooner the better.

Mr. Davidson: So I’m clear, this has been a continuing issue. It is not like they haven’t been communicated with. This is from 2017, 2018 and 2019. I appreciate my colleague Nathaniel, but seven years has passed. I understand what he said saying, namely, to give them an extra week. To immediately go to disallowance still leaves both the window and the door open for them to deal with this over the summer and come back and say it is dealt with. Why give them an extra week, especially if they haven’t done anything in seven years? Why will they do anything in a week? I would be like, whatever; this is a joke. I’d dump the letter.

[Translation]

Sylvie Bérubé, Legal Advisor to the Committee: After the sequence of events you just mentioned and the seven years the process has lasted, it would be relevant if the Minister of Public Safety or representatives of the department were called to appear before the committee to discuss the current situation.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): That is option 2, to have the minister here?

Mr. Davidson: To have the minister here?

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Yes; I think that’s what she’s suggesting.

Mr. Zuberi: Initially, I was more partial to option 2. I think we shouldn’t go to the maximal option the first time we really get into this and get hold of it as a committee — the current composition of the committee, that is. These issues we are dealing with at this committee have been festering for years and we end up dealing with them after 5 or 10 years. That’s the way this committee operates. This is how the committee actually handles these things.

This seven-year delay for a response is not unusual. We need to situate it in perspective, which is that this is, unfortunately, somewhat the norm in terms of what this committee deals with. That being said, my first impulse was to go for option 2.

[Translation]

So, as Ms. Bérubé said, it would be a matter of calling the minister or representatives of the department to appear here.

[English]

We can have an exchange with them. I found that to be really productive in the past.

The other option put forward by our colleague Mr. Erskine-Smith makes sense also, where we put out a clear threat that we will move toward disallowance if, within a reasonable delay, there is no action.

Either of those two options are fine with the proviso that a reasonable delay is given if we write a letter expressing disallowance.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I would like to encourage my colleagues who are online to weigh in as well if you have the approved headsets, et cetera, because we have a diversity of views, and I’m trying to get the correct temperature of the room.

Mr. Louis: I’m in agreement with what you are saying, Mr. Zuberi, and also with what Mr. Johns said. With those kinds of hard deadlines, we could set that new precedent.

In answer to the question regarding the amount of time, we are talking about the difference between Bill C-71 and now Bill C-21, which is saying that we are going to address those issues. Bill C-71 took a couple of years to address those issues, and Bill C-21 is saying that they want the same time. I think we need answers, so I would say that a letter with a hard deadline before we go to that next and final step would make sense at this point.

Senator Dean: I’m perfectly fine with a hard message with a deadline, after which we would indicate disallowance. We could certainly build in some lag time before we issue such a letter to ensure that it carries them through to the fall. Any of those options are fine with me.

I want to make the point that I’m probably one of the few people in this room who is public service friendly because I spent a lot of my life working in the public service. We all know — particularly those of us who have been associated with each of those bills and the regulations that were supposed to flow from them — that while seven years is a long time, the people working on this file have been working on it continually for seven years, on either one of those very complex pieces of regulation or the mass of regulations that would flow from them.

Yes, seven years is a long time, but it’s not as though people have downed tools over those seven years. This has been fraught. It has been contentious. It has been contested. We have all been lobbied. I have no doubt that public servants have been working hard and diligently on this. I wanted to say that it’s not seven years of dead space and dead time with no work being done, just to put a little bit of balance into that.

That being said, whether we send a hard message first — a shot across the bows, so to speak — or whether we go directly to a notice of disallowance that would provide a window until the fall or later into the fall, I’m fine with either of those, but I just felt the need to put some things into context.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Do we have other comments?

Mr. Davidson: I respect what you said. A notice of disallowance is your strong letter after this period of time. That’s what disallowance is there for, and I think it has to be respected by this committee after this much time has passed. I understand my colleague when he said that it is not unusual to see this. This is half the problem with government. We don’t want it to become usual for it to take 7 years or with other issues we have dealt with to take 10 or 12 years. Reasonable timelines must be imposed on these things, and failure to act means disallowance. I think I have made that point.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): If I could try to offer a bit of a synthesis. We all know that we are very close to the “nuclear option” of disallowance. We know that if we issue it today, it will have to carry over into the fall because of timing, which means that if we allow for one more kick at the can — whether it is recommendation one or recommendation two — they are both fairly similar because they are the last chance, whether we call the minister or we write the letter. That letter and/or meeting with the minister would take place in a few weeks time. Depending on the outcome, we could still issue a notice of disallowance before the recess and still force the department to come back with a response by the fall. In other words, we would be in the same place; it would have to go into the fall.

I want to put out the suggestion that we consider either recommendation one or two — hard deadline — with the clear understanding that this hard deadline, which will happen in the next few weeks when we meet, will result in a notice of disallowance, if in fact there is no satisfactory response.

Mr. Zuberi: I greatly support your idea of option 2. Clearly stated, I think it is productive to have officials or the minister here to have a conversation with us. Then we can move to disallowance — the nuclear option — afterwards if we want. That’s your exact suggestion, Mr. Joint Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I’m open to further discussion. There is a diversity of views here, and I’m trying to find middle ground. My main point is that issuing a notice of disallowance today or in two weeks’ time will have the same effective result chronologically because nothing will happen until the fall.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: That was why I proposed what I proposed, because I think we are going to end up in the same place regardless. Unlike Mr. Zuberi, my preference is a letter. I don’t want to ask questions of officials, asking, “Why didn’t you do this?” I’m not interested in banging those heads. Time has elapsed. We can give them a short deadline, and if they don’t do the job they need to do in the meantime, there will be a notice of disallowance, and away we go. I don’t think we need to litigate this in a meeting. I’m not hard and fast on that. I just don’t want to waste unnecessary time. My preference is a letter followed by a notice of disallowance if we see no action.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Colleagues, are there any other comments?

Mr. Davidson: If that’s the route the committee wants to take — departmental officials — then I want to hear from the minister. I would want the minister here before the House breaks. If we are going to have a meeting anyway, we may as well have the minister here to answer for this. Let’s bring the minister in, give them one more chance and go from there. I agree with my colleague that we should bring in departmental officials. Let’s go get it done; bring in the minister.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I think we are narrowing it down to option 1 or 2 — if I can make that judgment. Option 1 is the hard letter, hard deadline and no witnesses. Option 2 is to bring in the minister and/or witnesses. Both have the same result, because if either one is unsatisfactory, we go for the notice of disallowance.

Mr. Davidson, you are right that it’s good to hear from the minister, but it’s not as if at our meeting in two weeks’ time we cannot spend our time doing other useful things as well. We have a lot of files to consider. Can we narrow the discussion as to whether we want option 1 or 2? It’s the same result. Mr. Davidson is favouring option 2, which is to call the minister. If there are no voices contrary to that view, I will put that to a decision.

Mr. Webber: I will reiterate what I said in the past, which is option 1, letter now.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Option 1, letter now. Okay.

Mr. Davidson: Again, I’m back on the disallowance. If it is an option to have the minister here, we want it clearly stated when that is going to be. Obviously, before the House recess. If we put out a letter, we need the minister here on this issue, and if they respond saying, “We are not going to have time until September or October,” this thing is going to continue to bleed along. So my first option would be for disallowance. Second would be to get the minister here, but in a timely fashion before the House rises, so we can issue that letter for disallowance if that should be done.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): The practical matter is that we have little control over whether the minister is available or not. The next meeting is likely May 27. I have no idea what the minister’s calendar looks like.

It would seem to me that a surer bet is the letter, because that says it all, whether or not the minister comes, whereas if we go for the minister option and he legitimately cannot make it, we have missed that window.

Mr. Zuberi: I was thinking along the same line as you. If the minister cannot appear on that particular date, we shouldn’t box in or require the minister to attend. It could be the minister or departmental official who has a capacity to respond. I don’t think we should box in the minister. It definitely should be whoever can give us the answers — just for precision on that particular point.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I’m hearing that some members are not interested in hearing from officials. If we want the minister but the minister cannot make it and we cannot issue that hard deadline, then we have missed our window for disallowance. It seems to me the surer way to get to a disallowance, if there is no satisfactory response, is to issue the letter. And then you are going to get disallowance. That’s my thinking.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: I am completely on the same page. No wonder these things take seven years if we spend so much time on these things ourselves. Let’s just move on with the letter. I was just at the Canada-China Committee and the minister attended on a very important issue around the Level 4 lab. Let’s not waste the minister’s time on an issue like this where he wasn’t the minister when this began. Let’s just be as laser focused as we can be at this committee so we can move through our files. Let’s just send the letter and the notice of disallowance if they don’t respond and then move on to the next file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I would like to put that on the table for our agreement. We are on the same page that we want to bring this to conclusion and that there will be a notice of disallowance if the next step does not bear fruit. Unless there are strong objections, that will be the instruction we give to counsel.

Thank you. Let’s move on to the next item.

SOR/2020-105 — CANADA EMERGENCY STUDENT BENEFIT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 17D:1. )

Julie Béchard, Counsel to the Committee: This is the first time that the Canada Emergency Student Benefit Regulations are before the joint committee. Two issues were originally raised with the Department of Employment and Social Development in June 2020. The regulations incorporate by reference two lists of educational institutions that students must have attended to be eligible for the COVID-19 Canada Emergency Student Benefit.

The first issue was that these lists appeared to be incorporated in a static manner, meaning they were incorporated only as they were on the date of coming into force of the regulations. However, there was some doubt as to whether this was intended because the website maintaining these lists indicated that the lists were updated regularly. The department confirmed in August 2021 that the incorporation by reference was intentionally static as the students were eligible for the benefit for only a specific period of time after the regulations came into force. This can be considered a satisfactory answer.

For the second issue, one of the lists was incorporated in the regulations with an incorrect title in the English version. The department agreed in August 2021 that it was an error that it would correct in a future miscellaneous amendment regulations package. In an update in January 2022, the department indicated that it expected the amendment to be completed in the 2022-23 fiscal year. However, it has yet to be made.

If members agree, counsel can follow up with the department on when the promised amendments will be made.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Are there any comments? Okay, agreed. Thank you, Julie. Let me turn to my joint chair to pick up the rest of the agenda.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you, everyone. Moving on to “Part Action Promised.”

[Translation]

SOR/2014-308 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PORT AUTHORITIES OPERATIONS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 17E:1.)

Ms. Béchard: In this matter, the Ministry of Transportation agreed to make the proposed amendments for two issues raised by the joint committee. At the meeting on May 2, 2022, the committee was not satisfied with the ministry’s explanation regarding the paragraphs that contained drafting issues.

Following that meeting, another paragraph that appeared to be drafted with the same kind of error was discussed. However, the department’s response was satisfactory. The paragraph that still raises issues sets out requirements for truckers, in addition to authorizations governed by British Columbia laws.

The ministry confirmed that it would make the amendments to address the drafting issues in a letter received by the committee on January 26, 2023. This letter, which was received just over a year ago, advises us that the ministry intends to incorporate the amendments into a larger series of regulatory changes. This still has not happened.

We recommend to the joint committee that a letter be sent to the ministry to obtain an update as to when it plans to make the amendments.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay. MP Carrie, welcome to the committee.

Mr. Carrie: Thank you. I want to thank counsel. I do believe we should seek an update as recommended.

I would like to put on the record that in Oshawa, we have a port and I meet with them regularly. They just stated how important these updates and consultations are. They wanted me to note that the Canadian port authorities are very unique government business enterprises. Their operations are entirely self-funded by commercial activities.

They need to be flexible and market driven in the approach to borrowing because currently, ports’ borrowing limits are set and adjusted via a lengthy request process through Transport Canada. This impairs the port’s ability to make plans and consider development. What they are looking for in updates and drafting is certainty. They have recommended an alternative approach. The Hamilton Oshawa Port Authority looks to get support from CBSA for the supply chain for competitiveness but they also want to point out how much in greenhouse gas savings that ports are able to provide to meet Canada’s goals. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you. Anyone else that we asked for an update?

Mr. Louis: I agree. They said that the changes are coming in a bigger package so it makes sense to ask them about it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you, MP Louis. Moving on, item 6 on our agenda is next.

SI/2018-30 — LOCALLY ENGAGED EMPLOYEES OF THE CANADIAN EMBASSY AND CONSULATES IN THE UNITED STATES REMISSION ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 17F:1.)

Julie Lévesque, Counsel to the Committee: Concerns with this order were raised with the Department of Finance, all of which were drafting related. Specifically, one issue involved the French-English discrepancy for which the department provided a persuasive explanation. Since there was a very low risk of it creating a potential ambiguity, it was agreed that an amendment was not necessary. Another issue involved the lack of clarity in both versions. The department again provided a satisfactory explanation.

Finally, some wording in English did not appear in the French. While the department agreed in January 2020 to amend the English version, it has yet to do so.

As a next step if the committee agrees counsel could follow up with the department on the status of this promised amendment. Are members in agreement with this approach?

Mr. Davidson: That sounds like a fair approach. We should definitely follow up. We should discuss around this table quickly about a reasonable time that we should expect them to reply on this.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Mr. Davidson has said not only to write back but also to request within a certain period of time. Can counsel maybe give us an indication as to what a reasonable amount of time for a part action promise like this would be?

Mr. Hilton: Generally, when counsel sends letters to departments, four months is provided for them to provide an response before counsel would follow up with them again. It’s up to committee members if they want to shorten that time to one, two or three months, before counsel would follow up with the department if a response has not been received.

Mr. Davidson: This been since 2020, so four years. The other issue was seven years; this is four. I would cut it down from four months. Maybe 60 days is more reasonable. I would like to see 30 or 7, but I’m being reasonable at 60 days. I don’t know what the committee feels.

Mr. Louis: This is a bit of a trial balloon. We can ask for half the time to see if it’s reasonable, and if they come back and say this is absolutely unreasonable, then maybe it is. But if it is reasonable, maybe we will have a new precedent and we can get those four months down a little bit. I think that makes sense.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I don’t object to whatever the committee wants. I would also say that, so far, this particular group has been good to work with, and that is noteworthy here. It sounds like two months is what we want to put in the letter. Anything further?

Let’s move on to item 7.

[Translation]

SOR/2020-182 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2020-184 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA STUDENT LOANS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 17G:1.)

Ms. Lévesque: This is the first time that these two matters have been presented to the joint committee. They raise four issues that apply to both regulations, three of which relate to the wording of one or both versions, and the fourth to a question of authority. Following discussions with the Department of Employment and Social Development, the department has agreed to make three of the four required amendments by the end of March 2025.

At this point, it would be a good idea to ask the department for an update on these amendments. The issue on which the department has not yet indicated that it will make an amendment relates to the wording for when a borrower must apply for deferred loan repayment in the event of medical leave. According to the wording, the application must be submitted “no later than 12 months after … the date specified by the medical professional.” This wording is ambiguous and can mean more than one thing.

According to the department, the ambiguity was intended, because it gives them more flexibility to write into their policy the date to be specified by the medical professional.

As a next step, with the support of committee members, of course, a follow-up letter to the department could be sent to insist on the amendment to which the department has not yet committed and to ask the department to provide an update on the three amendments to which it has already committed. As always, it’s up to committee members to decide whether this approach suits them.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I will point out to members that I also did not reference that this is 182 and 184. There are two files there. Counsel, you explained both of those, correct? Okay.

Mr. Webber: Thank you, counsel, for your work on this. I absolutely support your recommendations. I won’t say anything further.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you very much. It sounds like we are in agreement.

Next is “Part Action Taken,” and item 8, which is SOR/2010-107, Regulations Amending the Class II Nuclear Facilities and Prescribed Equipment Regulations. I hope I can learn something new today.

[Translation]

SOR/2010-107 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CLASS II NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND PRESCRIBED EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 17H:1.)

Mr. Hilton: Amendments were made in 2022 to correct two discrepancies between the French and English versions of the regulations. With respect to the two remaining substantive amendments, their pre-publication is no longer expected before 2024 or 2025. These two substantive issues relate to unjustified discretionary powers granted to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for the certification and decertification of nuclear safety officers.

The committee opposes such powers because they may allow people to be treated differently in identical circumstances.

As committee members can see from the legal briefing note, the commission has been slow to make the promised amendments, despite the committee’s persistent efforts. In its last update dated January 2022, the commission indicated that consultations with stakeholders would not take place until 2022 or 2023. The commission also indicated that, due to internal delays caused in part by the pandemic, it would have to further delay pre-publication of amendments, this time to 2024 or 2025.

While the commission still seems intent on making the final amendments, the timeframe it gives itself solely for their pre-publication — two years — remains long and unclear. Even if this deadline is met, it means that final publication of the amendments will come, at the earliest, six or seven years after they were first promised in 2018. There is no doubt that the pandemic disrupted the normal course of the commission’s activities, and that some delay was to be expected. However, this time it is taking the commission to make the remaining amendments now borders on unreasonable.

Under the circumstances, a few options are available to committee members. First, a letter could be sent to the commission to inquire about the status of the latest amendments. Second, the co-chairs could send a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources. Third, representatives of the commission could be called to appear before the committee.

[English]

Mr. Davidson: This committee loves letters. That’s the word of the day. We’re going to do another seven years. I guess we’re just sending out another letter. That’s what it sounds like.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): That is one of the mechanisms we have. You are more than welcome to recommend another one, though. You can keep that in mind.

Mr. Johns: Back to the theme of the day, if we send a letter, let’s put a deadline on the letter. If we start doing that, everyone will get the idea that we’re going to start taking action if there is no response. I think that’s the best approach forward; it’s reasonable.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Does anyone have a timeline? I believe our standard is four months. In the last letter, we said we were going to bring it down to two months.

Mr. Louis: I agree with Mr. Johns. I didn’t have a specific timeline, but it was more of a question because I’m newer to the committee.

Two of the four issues are translation issues. Historically, are those easier to fix or are they usually fixed faster than the more substantive issues?

Mr. Hilton: The two French-English issues were addressed already. The issues that the committee is waiting on relate to unnecessary discretion relating to the certification and decertification of radiation safety officers.

Mr. Zuberi: I don’t want to opine on how long the delay should be. I think we should defer to the committee staff, who best know the customs and what is required for us to actually have a reasonable delay.

The key thing here, I think, is a reasonable delay, not in terms of the delay that we think it should be without actually knowing what goes into replying to us. I would suggest that the joint chairs work with the staff to determine what that reasonable delay is.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Mr. Zuberi, I appreciate you giving your confidence in the joint chairs, but I will say that when we talk to counsel, counsel will always defer to what the committee wants.

Senator Dean: I always look at the substance of the issue that we’re dealing with first. Arguably, I think nuclear safety and the certification and decertification of nuclear safety officers attracts both workers’ safety and public safety. This is not a translation issue; it’s substantive. I would therefore be in favour of the most urgent and expeditious response to this.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Would you have a number?

Senator Dean: In terms of?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Of a reply.

Senator Dean: No. I think, “urgently.”

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you for explaining that.

Mr. Davidson: I would just say to my colleague that I think we all realize this is an important issue. I would say we were somewhat successful with having the chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board here. Would it be good to get the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission here to explain this and ask for the official to come? I’m just trying to find a reasonable way for the committee not to waste anyone’s time. It would be nice to get the president here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): One thing I should note is that, when we’re talking about writing a letter, who are we writing the letter to; one would be the officials, and one would be the minister’s office.

Second to that, we now also have a proposal to bring in the minister. I think that’s in light of the comments made by Senator Dean.

[Translation]

Ms. Bérubé: Indeed as far as the second option goes, but we could also submit a letter to the minister and the commission.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): We now have a proposal to write a letter to the minister and the department as well.

Mr. Carrie: Living in Oshawa, I live between two nuclear plants, and I have a lot of friends who work in the nuclear field. As the senator said, I see this as extremely urgent in order to give certainty. Right now, as far as our build-out for emissions-free power, Canada needs to streamline things as best we can.

If you look globally, it takes 7.5 years on average now to build a nuclear plant. It is a little bit longer in Canada. But if we’re waiting just to get regulatory certainty — 7.5 years — that’s a message. I think we have to explain that it’s extremely urgent and that the committee would like to have some of that certainty. And so would my constituents, by the way.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Before we go any further, I want to ensure we’re all discussing the same thing, because there seems to be some alignment coming along. Number one, we are going to write a letter. It’s going to be to the minister, and the department officials will be copied on that, as Ms. Bérubé has suggested, but that we ask for them to reply back by our next meeting, which is tentatively May 27. That is what Senator Woo said earlier. We would decide on the issue then. If we have not heard back by that point, perhaps we could talk about bringing in the regulator themselves or the minister.

Does that meet the urgency that Senator Dean has indicated? I see everyone nodding.

Counsel, do you have clear direction? Okay, thank you.

SOR/2018-111 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MIGRATORY BIRDS REGULATIONS

SOR/2020-133 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MIGRATORY BIRDS REGULATIONS

10. SOR/2023-106 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (ELECTRONIC TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION)

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 17I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): These items are under “Action Taken.” Colleagues, we’ve recently started to just simply waive the reports on “Action Taken” by just thanking counsel for their work. “Action Taken” is typically just reporting that everything has been done. This is a new way of doing business. Do I have consent to just move on?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Thank you.

SI/2019-115 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2019-116 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2019-117 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA TO BE THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSED OF THAT ACT

SI/2020-68 — ORDER REPEALING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2019-1345 OF NOVEMBER 20, 2019

SI/2021-66 — ORDER REPEALING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2019-1343 OF NOVEMBER 20, 2019

SI/2021-75 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS AND ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF HEALTH

SI/2021-77 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF SPORT AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

SI/2022-4 — ORDER DESIGNATING (1) THE DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE; (2) THE DEPARTMENT FOR WOMEN AND GENDER EQUALITY; (3) THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT; AND (4) THE OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF CANADA TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF HOUSING AND DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

SI/2021-60 — PROCLAMATION DISSOLVING PARLIAMENT

SI/2021-61 — PROCLAMATION ISSUING ELECTION WRITS

SI/2023-29 — ORDER REPEALING AN ORDER MADE UNDER THE SALARIES ACT (MINISTER OF HOUSING AND DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION)

SI/2023-35 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF CITIZENS’ SERVICES

SI/2023-36 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF SMALL BUSINESS AND TOURISM

SI/2023-37 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE MINISTER OF SPORT AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): For “Statutory Instruments Without Comment,” we usually just accept those as being there.

Before we let everyone go, a member of the committee has raised to me that we’ve had witnesses recently — Minister Blair, as well as the Chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. In order to spotlight some of the good work this committee has done in holding the government and its departments to account, it would be helpful to have it so that we are televised when we do have a witness appearing before the committee. Unfortunately, only the audio clips, I believe, were made available afterward. To be fair, it’s a good request that, when we are bringing in witnesses, Canadians know that the committee is doing its job.

I’ve been told by the clerks that we would need to have a motion specifying that we would like to televise when we do have witnesses. I would just ask for that. We can always delay it until the next meeting, but if everyone is in agreement with it today, we could give that direction so that we don’t have to scramble if we are having a witness come where we have to wait for them to do their presentation while we discuss whether we should be televised. I don’t even think that’s logistically possible.

Mr. Louis: I have a technical question. Is this room set up for that?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I’m told by the Senate side and the clerks that, yes, we are.

If everyone is in agreement with this, the clerks have told me that we will make this request, because there are some administrative issues that have to go on to make sure it’s televised properly.

Is the committee in agreement with the proposal to have us televised, again with the idea that we will still have a few more hoops that we have to jump through?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay.

I appreciate everyone’s contribution today here at the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I wish you all a good day.

(The committee adjourned.)