REGS Committee Meeting

---

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, March 6, 2023

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

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

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I’m very happy to be here along with my colleague Senator Woo and all of you for our meeting. We’ll start with special agenda item 1.

[Translation]

SOR/2018-108 — SAFE FOOD FOR CANADIANS REGULATIONS

Geoffrey Hilton, Counsel to the Committee: Committee members may recall that this file was presented to the committee in the spring of 2022. At that time, the committee was advised that the new Safe Food for Canadians Regulations had not yet undergone a comprehensive review, but it was repealing 13 other regulations, which would close 20 committee files. Again, the full list of these files can be found in the legal backgrounder prepared for members.

Some members, however, expressed reservations about closing these old files owing to consultations with agricultural producers on package labelling that had not been conducted exhaustively because of the COVID-19 pandemic. So those members requested that the closure of these 20 files be suspended while their concerns were discussed. Since then, those members have not communicated any further questions or concerns to legal counsel.

For greater clarity, any consultation that took place during the pandemic would have nothing to do with this specific file, as these regulations were made in 2018, so before the pandemic. I have noted, however, that amendments were made to the regulations in the summer of 2022 and, of course, these amendments will be reviewed by legal counsel in light of members’ concerns.

In due course, the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and their recent amendments will be presented to the committee. For now, all we’re doing is indicating that 20 of the committee’s files can be closed, as the regulations pertaining to these 20 files have been repealed and no longer exist.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Members on either side, online or in person, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Webber: I would agree with counsel here to close the files on those 20 files.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Do we have agreement? I’m checking online. It looks like we do. Thank you.

Next up we have item 2. Mr. Hilton, if you could please introduce this to the members of the committee.

SOR/2018-257— ORDER DESIGNATING NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 347.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 7A:1.)

Mr. Hilton: Before I begin, I want to mention that my presentation will go slightly beyond what is written in the briefing note prepared for members.

This order came into force on April 1, 2019, but it was not reflected as being in force on the Justice Laws Website, which contains the official online consolidation of federal legislation, during a six-month period when it should have been indicated as being in force.

As the title of the order indicates, it designated Newfoundland and Labrador for the purposes of section 347.1 of the Criminal Code. Section 347.1 exempted, subject to certain conditions, the application of the Criminal Code’s provisions on criminal interest rate in respect of a payday loan agreement. The protection of consumers within the payday lending industry is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, so this designation essentially allowed the province to regulate the payday lending industry as it deemed appropriate.

The Justice Laws Website is usually updated every two to three weeks, so the order should have in theory been displayed as being in force as of April 1, 2019, sometime in mid-to-late April 2019. However, at the time counsel reviewed this order in September 2019, the Justice Laws Website still showed the order as having not yet come into force, despite the website indicating as being current to June 20, 2019.

As you can imagine, this had the potential to cause considerable confusion among those in the province’s payday loan industry as to the state of the law. When asked about this apparent discrepancy, the Department of Justice did not specifically address the issue; rather, it just stated that the Justice Laws Website was updated on September 24, 2019, and that it now correctly indicated the order as being in force as of April 1, 2019. While the Justice Laws Website eventually showed when the order came into force, the committee still does not have an answer as to why this issue arose in the first place or if any person was negatively affected as a result.

This leads us now to how members would like to proceed. On the one hand, members may wish to send a further letter to the department in the hopes of getting a definitive answer as to why the Justice Laws Website was not updated in a timely manner, as well seek assurances that the affected or regulated entities were aware of the state of the law during the period in which the official consolidation did not show the order as being in force. On the other hand, members may wish to simply close the file. If it is desired to close the file, members have the option to emphasize in the closing letter to the department that the committee expects the Justice Laws Website to be maintained and updated in a timely manner and that such compliance will be monitored moving forward.

I am in the committee’s hands.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Right. I see that MP Allison has raised his hand.

Mr. Allison: Thank you very much. I agree with what has been suggested, and I want to thank the counsel for their watchful eye in being able to flag this. I think we should probably close it, but it wouldn’t hurt to send a letter out to get some kind explanation. That would be my thought, which is what the recommendation says.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): MP Allison has suggested closing the file with a letter coming from the joint chairs.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: This brings me back to some of my comments from the previous meeting. I understand that an important regulatory change has been made, namely that, when visiting a website that has been updated several times, the citizen, who must be able to have confidence in government institutions, does not obtain information on that website. As I understand it, the committee asked what had happened and, once again, it’s as if we’re being mocked; we are not getting a response. Then we were told that, finally, three months later, what had to be done had been done, and that it should have been done several times over. In the end, as it was done, the committee will calm down.

I think we should, to save ourselves some work in the future — Obviously, if no protocol has been put in place at the Department of Justice, there will be further regulatory changes. I think we have to insist and ask what protocol has been put in place, so that Canadians can have access to up-to-date regulatory changes. I think we have a right to expect an answer.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): We have another course of action put forward by MP Garon. I’m reinterpreting what he said, which is to keep the file open but to demand answers from the Justice Department. This is an area that some of the poorest people do rely on when we’re talking about payday loans.

We have two different proposals. I would ask members of the committee to voice which side they would like to support — again, closing the file with a final letter to Justice demanding them to keep the website current and that the law is certain, or —

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: One approach doesn’t preclude the other. We can remind them quite firmly that they haven’t answered our question, since we asked them what protocols had been put in place. We’ll get an answer eventually, and we can decide to close the file later. We can do this in a very courteous way.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I stand corrected. MP Garon has said we can apply both the approaches. Are members of the committee satisfied with that approach?

Mr. Davidson: At the last meeting — only because I’m new, Mr. Chair — did we not ask department officials to attend this committee? Who was sent letters or asked? Do we have an update on that?

Mr. Hilton: That was on a separate file.

Mr. Davidson: Okay. Do we have an update on that?

Mr. Hilton: Not yet.

Mr. Davidson: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): We are, like counsel, in your hands, committee. Does anyone have anything else they would like to do with the approach? So far we have suggested that we close the file with a stern letter demanding what protocols have been put in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: No. I insist that we write a letter, not close the file and wait for a reply. Once the file is closed, there’s no going back.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I understand now. Thank you for the correction.

[English]

We have two different paths here, and we still have some committee members who have not spoken up and voiced their opinions. One path is to close the file with a stern letter. The other is the stern letter and perhaps an open-ended question as to what to do next, demanding more information as to what protocol is in place.

Mr. Webber: Stern letter and close the file.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay. I want to again reiterate that MP Garon is correct that the committee does not always get the answers, but I understand that the committee has made up its mind in this case. We’re going to close the file with a stern letter. Are we okay to move on with a stern letter outlining the committee’s desire for this not to happen again? Perfect.

SI/2019-94 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 7B:1.)

Mr. Hilton: To begin, I will say that no issue was raised with respect to this specific amending order. However, an issue was raised with respect to the operation of this amending order’s parent order. As members can see, the title of the parent order is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act Deputy Heads of the Public Service of Canada Order. From here on, I will be referring to this parent order as simply “the order.”

Under section 2 of the order, those holding the public service positions listed in the schedule are designated as the deputy head of that portion of the public service for the purposes of Part III of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act or the CSIS Act. For context, Part III of the CSIS Act established the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which in essence served as a review body for CSIS.

In practical terms, those designated under the order had certain requirements imposed on them with respect to any complaint investigated by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The issue here, though, is that Part III of the CSIS Act no longer exists. It was repealed in 2019 by the newly enacted National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act or the NSIRA Act. Through this new enactment, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency was established, and the review powers formerly granted to the Security Intelligence Review Committee under Part III of the CSIS Act were transferred to the new National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. As a result, a person would no longer be designated for the purposes of Part III of the CSIS Act. Rather, now that person would be designated for the purposes of the NSIRA Act.

It seemed obvious that the Order be amended to refer to the NSIRA Act rather than the part of the CSIS Act that has since been repealed. When asked about this, the Privy Council appeared to believe that the validity of the order was being questioned and so cited paragraphs 44(f) and 44(g) of the Interpretation Act for reasons why the repeal of Part III of the CSIS Act and simultaneous enactment of the NSIRA Act did not affect the legal validity of the order or render the order inconsistent with the NSIRA Act.

From the outset, it must be said that at no point in counsel’s original letter was the validity of the order ever questioned. The full analysis of the Privy Council’s response can be found in the briefing note prepared for members, but in the interest of time, I will simply say that the Privy Council is correct in its view that the Interpretation Act does allow for repealed enactments to be read as or interpreted to mean references to new enactments. The provisions of the Interpretation Act that the Privy Council cited — paragraphs 44(f) and 44(g) — provide, generally, that where an enactment is repealed and another enactment substituted therefore, that the new enactment be read as a continuation of the old enactment and that regulations made under the old enactment remain in force to the extent that they are compatible with the new enactment.

Again, though, it was never questioned whether there was sufficient authority under the NSIRA Act to keep the order in operation or to even enact this present amending order. Rather, the issue was simply that retaining references to a repealed part of the CSIS Act in the order has the potential to cause considerable confusion as to how the order is supposed to operate. While the order in practice does not affect the public in the sense of imposing obligations or granting rights, this alone does not lessen the fact that the effectiveness and clarity of the order are undermined by its continued reference to the CSIS Act. As detailed in the briefing note, a reader would have to be well versed in statutory interpretation and be familiar enough with the Justice Laws Website to figure out how the order is supposed to work.

At the end of the day, the point of paragraphs 44(f) and 44(g) of the Interpretation Act is to promote legal continuity to the greatest extent possible during a time between a repealed enactment and a new enactment. However, that transition period between the repealed parts of the CSIS Act and the NSIRA Act has long since passed. Therefore, having the order continue to reference an act it no longer relates to is simply misleading. The government may have no legal obligation to update the order, but it still has an inherent responsibility to maintain federal legislation and ensure that its enactments are coherent, in good order and presented to the public according to good drafting practices. Retaining misleading and obsolete references in the order only runs contrary to those principles.

It is now up to members on how they would like to proceed. If members believe the order should be updated to refer to the NSIRA Act, then a further letter could be sent to the Privy Council along the lines just discussed. If, however, members are satisfied with the position of the Privy Council, which is to not update the order, then this file may be closed.

I am in the committee’s hands.

Senator Dean: I have been reminded recently that there are a number of players and organizations involved in security and intelligence, and it is important that the public and everybody else understand who does what, who reports to whom and who investigates whom. So I’m strongly in favour of revisiting this on those grounds.

Mr. Davidson: I would agree with the senator that we should write the Privy Council and ask them if it intends to amend the CSIS Act so that the titles are correct. If someone listened to this, I think they would be lost in the first two sentences; no offence to you at all.

This is, again, keeping things up to date for the public. I would agree with the senator as well. I think it goes back to whether we are going to have witnesses come on this.

Mr. Hilton: Witnesses hadn’t been invited for this particular file. When witnesses are invited, it is usually in relation to a specific file that was presented before the committee. However, in this instance —

Mr. Davidson: Regarding the witnesses we invited last meeting, who did we invite last meeting?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): It was Environment Canada on a different file.

Mr. Davidson: Yes. And they haven’t gotten back to us yet. How long does that take? I’m just saying that we’ve had two weeks. How long we did we give them?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): It’s impossible to answer until we have a response from them. However, if the committee feels we aren’t taken seriously, as co-chairs, we can be tasked to write to them again and to ask for their presence. Again, it’s these situations where it’s the committee’s wish and desire. Is there a desire to have officials come to speak to us? MP Noormohamed raised his hand earlier. Maybe he would like to illustrate his point.

Mr. Noormohamed: I’m not sure we need witnesses on this. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to ask for some clarity about the PCO’s intentions on amending the CSIS Act. There is enough noise out there about security agencies and the more clarity we can give Canadians as to where that oversight resides and how it works would be valuable to everyone.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): There seems to be some consensus around the fact that this is an issue we want to continue to work on and that we would like to write a letter to raise the committee’s view again, but there is also the question of witnesses. Perhaps we can have a few other members voice in as to what route they would like to go, whether it is simply writing a letter reiterating that the committee is pressing for changes to the NSIRA Act or if it is for officials.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: My understanding is that hearing from public servants is not exactly in the committee’s culture, but I remind you again that what is in the committee’s culture is to accept a lack of response or to accept a response after 5, 10 or 12 years of waiting. To me, that is not a response.

If we think the file is important enough, or if enough confusion is created by a reference to one piece of legislation or another, it may be a good idea to have a conversation here — perhaps behind closed doors, if we think it’s necessary — to fully understand their intentions and interpretation and resolve the matter more quickly. Should we write a letter first, ask for a quick reply and then make a decision? We can discuss this, and I think it may be a good idea. If not, you know what will happen: We’ll have an answer in 2034.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): MP Garon has suggested to the committee a letter demanding answers and, if we don’t have that, then we can raise that issue. I should remind members of this committee that the co-chairs are always going to seek out what you desire, but if we have witnesses at every committee meeting, that may be difficult.

Mr. Allison: I’m going to support my last two colleagues who mentioned that. I would not be opposed to bringing people in for more clarification. That is certainly within our right to do so. If we don’t think we’re getting the proper answers that we need in the form of a letter, then we could be more direct. I have no problem bringing people in when we’re not getting the answers that we want.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Well, the Privy Council Office has responded previously, in other files, conclusively to the committee. Perhaps, if I can just test the will of the committee, we write a stern letter asking for answers and direct counsel that if we don’t get that within a certain amount of time, then we can flag it again and ask them to come as witnesses. Is that fair?

Mr. Davidson: Can we suggest the date when we ask for witnesses to attend? All I’m saying is this committee hasn’t sat in a little while. We’ve asked Environment Canada officials to appear. Almost three weeks have gone by. We’re all MPs here. When a constituent calls my office, I don’t take three or four weeks or, to my colleague’s point, two years to get back to them. We have hundreds of requests for meetings and we book them. I don’t know where the disconnect is of getting people here. That’s all.

Tanya Dupuis, General Counsel to the Committee: I can inform the committee that a letter was sent to Environment and Climate Change Canada inviting them to appear. We offered them two possible dates for their appearance. I believe the clerks followed up last week, but we haven’t received a response as of yet. The follow-up was sent last Friday. The clerks ere indicating yes, for the record. The file can be brought back before the committee if we do not receive a response.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): To the point of this matter, because we don’t want to confuse the issue with Environment Canada and our request there, the clerks have informed me that we can add a time limit into any potential letter saying that we would like a response back by a certain time. If not, then it can be raised with the committee for further discussion at that point.

Are we comfortable with that, members? Again, I use the term “members” for members of the committee and not “members” as in members and senators. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hilton: Is there a specific time limit you would like me to include in the letter?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): MP Garon, do you have an opinion?

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: I think it’s important that we get an answer and be able to respond and hear from these people before suspending; it’s fast approaching, and I’d give a maximum of three weeks. By the way, the file has already been sent; it seems they’ve already misunderstood the letter that was sent, but it’s nothing they need to reanalyze.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): Okay. The suggestion was three weeks, members. I see some nodding of heads and a thumbs up. Thank you. I now pass it over to our joint chair’s capable hands so you will have a better meeting from this point on.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you, Mr. Albas. I need to send it back to Mr. Hilton to brief us on the next item.

SOR/2004-109 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT REGULATIONS AS AMENDED BY SOR/2018-185

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 7C:1.)

Mr. Hilton: The committee is waiting on a final issue to be resolved. However, the Department of the Environment has never quite confirmed that the amendment would be made. In short, following amendments made to these regulations in 2018, redundant wording was identified in a provision that authorizes the deposit of effluent or waste into certain waste water systems. The effect of this redundant wording is it not only has the potential to confuse readers, but a court interpreting the regulations could attribute two different meanings to each instance of the wording.

The department has always maintained that no redundancy is present, but did confirm in 2019 that a review of the regulations was under way and that the committee’s concerns regarding the redundant wording would be taken into account during that review.

Initially, possible amendments arising out of the review were anticipated to be published in late 2020 or 2021, but the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to that review being paused, at which point the department advised that the amendments would only be made in late 2021 at the earliest, and now to spring 2023 at the earliest.

As we are now nearing spring 2023, members may wish to seek an update from the department confirming two things: that the necessary amendment to remove the redundant wording will be made; and whether it resumed work on its review and, if so, whether the amendments are expected to be made sometime beginning in the spring.

If the department’s reply does not seem satisfactory or it is found that the necessary amendment will not be made then, when this file is brought back before the committee, counsel can include for members’ consideration a draft notice of disallowance that would remove the redundant wording. For now, though, perhaps more current information could be sought.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Colleagues, do you have any comments?

Mr. Webber: First, thank you, counsel, for sticking with this and for your work on it. I would ask that, yes, we draft a letter to the department seeking confirmation that the necessary amendments that you mentioned are being made. We should also seek a general progress update from them regarding whether or not they are making these amendments and where they are with this.

That would be my recommendation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Mr. Webber, you support the recommendation, essentially.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: I have a question to make sure I understand. The changes resulting from the review of the regulations will be made in the spring of 2023 at the earliest. However, there is no confirmation that what has been requested to avoid redundancy will be included in these recommendations. Is that right?

I still see some openness. We did get some answers. I think that something has been done. The tone seems to be right, but I’d be in favour of reiterating the importance of eliminating the redundancy, if only because of the legal consequences for case law and to get a more precise date.

I understand that the COVID-19 pandemic happened. I don’t know what the Department of the Environment had to do so urgently because of COVID-19. If it had been the Department of Health, I would have understood. I understand that deadlines are being pushed back, but I’d like to see a specific date for the amendments. If we’re told “at the earliest on such-and-such a date,” that means it could happen in 2026 and that we’ve implicitly agreed to it. I’d like to have a clear timeline.

[English]

Mr. Garrison: I support the work of our counsel, and I think we should write a letter asking for a definite commitment to make the amendment and within a time frame.

I will do my war against the term “spring.” That is not a certain time. Spring has already come where I am from; it will come much later in other places. It leads to confusion because it’s a vague term, so I think we should use something more specific than “spring” unless we’re going to stick to the calendar and what date spring starts. But by then, it’s already too late; they haven’t done it by spring.

Something I do all the time is encourage people not to use “spring” and “fall” in Canada since it’s a big country. But I think we should ask for a definite commitment and a time frame.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I think we have an agreement. Please proceed as you recommended, but avoid the reference to “spring.” Ask them when they intend to move forward with the removal of the redundancy and the amendment.

Mr. Hilton: Is there a specific time frame that members have in mind for when they would like to see the amendment made?

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I think we want to say to them that they told us they would be doing it now. It’s fair to say we’re in the spring, roughly defined. Is it happening now, and if not, when?

Mr. Hilton: A more specific date —

Mr. Webber: Prior to June 21.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: It’s even worse, as they say September at the earliest. That means absolutely nothing.

There are legal consequences to all this, and there are probably documents to be produced. However, it’s up to the department to establish its framework and provide details. If they don’t provide them, we’ll impose them later.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): The onus is on the department to tell us what the current timetable will be as to when they intend to do this work. When you have received a response, we’ll decide if it’s a satisfactory response. If they say “summer 2023,” that might be acceptable to us, and we will check in again. If they say “summer 2026,” I suspect we will want to move to a disallowance.

Is that okay?

Let’s proceed to the next item.

[Translation]

SI/2018-98 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN ORDERS, DECORATIONS AND MEDALS DIRECTIVE, 1998

SI/2019-1 — ORDER AUTHORIZING MEMBERS OF THE ORDER OF YUKON TO WEAR THE INSIGNIA OF THE ORDER OF YUKON

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 7D:1.)

Geneviève Lévesque, Counsel to the Committee: This is the first presentation of these two files to the committee. The Privy Council Office has provided a response to the question raised that could be considered satisfactory. The insignia and medals in question have been recognized as honours and have been ranked in order of precedence, in accordance with the two orders in question.

Therefore, if the committee members are satisfied with the explanation provided, SI/2018-98 and SI/2019-1 can be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Is it agreed, colleagues? It is so close. Thank you, Ms. Lévesque.

Let’s move on to the next item.

SOR/2019-201 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (MEDICAL CERTIFICATE – VALIDITY PERIOD)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 7E:1.)

Mr. Hilton: This amending regulation resolves the remaining issue raised in connection with SOR/2007-229. Specifically, the discretion afforded to the Minister of Transport in subsection 404.04(9) in determining whether to endorse a shorter validity period on a medical certificate was narrowed.

Of note to members, the issue relating to subsection 404.04(9) was first raised with the Department of Transport in 2011, and the department’s subsequent failure to address the issue in a timely manner had resulted in the committee issuing a notice of disallowance on February 1, 2018. A March 1, 2018, response from the minister promised that the provision would be amended by the fall of 2018. Evidently, that timeline was not met, as subsection 404.04(9) was only amended by this present file — SOR/2019-201 — in June 2019.

Still, the issue has been resolved, so the committee’s file on SOR/2007-229 has been closed. Since no other concerns have been raised with respect to SOR/2019-201, this file can be closed as well.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Mr. Davidson, do you have a comment?

Mr. Davidson: Take me back. In 2011, they didn’t deal with it, then it expired in 2018 and this is just coming into effect now?

Mr. Hilton: An issue was raised in 2011 concerning the discretion afforded to the minister in this particular provision. In 2018, members were dissatisfied with the progress of that amendment being made, so a notice of disallowance was sent to the minister, advising that if amendments were not made —

Mr. Davidson: They can’t use that power.

Mr. Hilton: — the committee would follow through with that procedure.

The minister responded a month later in March 2018 advising that the amendment will be made, which forestalled the necessity to continue on with the disallowance procedure. The minister had indicated that the amendment would be made by the fall of 2018, but that amendment was not done by that time. It was only done by this file, SOR/2019-201, in June 2019.

Mr. Davidson: So the minister now could technically lengthen the period that he would allow a medical to go for.

I’m just circling back to all the commercial pilots who have called me who couldn’t get their commercial licences done because of failure on the part of the government to get them medicals. Transport Canada is way behind. I’m trying to circle back on whether this had a reflection on that, because I have pilots who are grounded and we had flight schools that were closed. Again, it was due to the inaction of the Minister of Transport to deal with that.

That’s what I was wondering about. Has been updated in the Canada Gazette? Has it all been updated and done now?

Mr. Hilton: The discretion afforded to the minister had been removed as of June 2019.

Mr. Davidson: Okay. All right.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albas): I just have a quick question.

In regard to this particular order or power that the minister has, this relates not just to pilots but also to air traffic controllers, et cetera. I believe it encompasses anything to do with medical exemptions; is that correct?

Mr. Hilton: It applies to a variety of those who would be required to furnish a medical certificate. A few examples would be a student pilot, private pilot and flight instructor. It’s all-encompassing for any person who would be required to submit a medical certificate under the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

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

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Are there other comments or questions?

If they had not made this change and we had brought the file back, we would have continued with the disallowance, so we should count this as a “win.” It’s not about winning or losing, but the threat produced an action.

Are there other questions? We will move on to the next item.

[Translation]

SOR/2008-135 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

SOR/2008-136 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE PRIVACY ACT

Ms. Lévesque: These two files were last presented to the committee on February 1, 2018. In the meantime, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, chapter 18, received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.

The amendments included address the committee’s concerns. In fact, the act allows changes to the schedules to be validated and also amends the enabling provisions, to give the Governor-in-Council the right to remove entities from the schedules.

These changes will ensure that the concerns raised by the committee do not recur in the future in these two files. Therefore, if committee members are satisfied with the explanation provided, SOR/2008-135 and SOR/2008-136 can be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Is it agreed? Thank you.

We will move on to item 8.

[Translation]

SOR/2021-147 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FREEZING ASSETS OF CORRUPT FOREIGN OFFICIALS (UKRAINE) REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 7F:1.)

Mr. Hilton: These amending regulations resolve the only issue raised regarding the committee’s file on SOR/2014-44.

More specifically, a discrepancy between the English and French versions in the schedule to the regulations has been corrected. Therefore, the committee’s file on SOR/2014-44 was closed. As no further issues have been raised with respect to SOR/2021-147, this file can also be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Are there any comments? Seeing none, please proceed as you recommended. Thank you.

Next is item 9.

[Translation]

SOR/2019-143 — ORDER REPEALING THE UNITED STATES SURTAX ORDER (STEEL AND ALUMINUM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 7G:1.)

Ms. Lévesque: The Order Repealing the United States Surtax Order (Steel and Aluminum), SOR/2019-143, repeals the United States Surtax Order (Steel and Aluminum), SOR/2018-152, which had not yet been presented to the joint committee.

SOR/2018-152 was in force for a short period of time. Therefore, these two files concerning SOR/2019-143 and SOR/2018-152 can be closed if committee members agree.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): But if they try to slap tariffs on us again, we might well bring it back.

Mr. Davidson: That’s that. We don’t like to ever see that word “tax.” Shut it down.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Is everyone agreed? Thank you. Let’s move on to item 10.

[Translation]

SOR/2022-151 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PRIVACY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 7H:1.)

Mr. Hilton: These amending regulations resolve the last issue raised regarding SOR/2013-115. Specifically, the name of an investigative body in the schedule to the regulations has been updated.

Therefore, the committee file on SOR/2013-115 has been closed, and as no further issues have been raised regarding SOR/2022-151, this file can also be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you. Let’s keep going.

[Translation]

SOR/2019-144 — ORDER REPEALING THE UNITED STATES SURTAX ORDER (OTHER GOODS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 7I:1.)

Ms. Lévesque: The Order Repealing the United States Surtax Order (Other Goods), SOR/2019-144, repeals the following instruments that had not yet been presented to the committee: the United States Surtax Order (Other Goods), SOR/2018-153, and the Order Amending the United States Surtax Order (Other Goods), SOR/2019-111.

SOR/2018-153 and SOR/2019-111 were in force for a short period of time. Therefore, these three files regarding SOR/2018-153, SOR/2019-111 and SOR/2019-144 can be closed if committee members agree.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you.

That brings us to the last section. There is really no commentary needed, but would you like to say anything, Ms. Lévesque?

[Translation]

SI/2018-55 — PROCLAMATION RENAMING “NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY” HELD ON JUNE 21 OF EACH YEAR AS “NATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY”

SI/2018-85 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING “FIRE PREVENTION WEEK”

SI/2018-100 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 17 AND 18, 2019 AS THE DAYS ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-4 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-46 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 30, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF (1) THE ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN 2014 ACT, NO. 2; AND (2) THE ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN 2015 ACT, NO. 1 COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-77 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THAT ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2019-78 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 1, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THAT ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2019-80 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 28, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-82 — ORDER FIXING JULY 1, 2020 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-83 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-85 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 15, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-88 — ORDER FIXING NOVEMBER 30, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-89 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE COMING INTO FORCE OF PART III

SI/2019-90 — ORDER FIXING NOVEMBER 1, 2019 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TWO ACTS COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-92 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH DIVISION 19 OF PART 4 OF THAT ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2019-95 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2019-96 — ORDER FIXING JANUARY 1, 2020 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THAT ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2019-98 — PROCLAMATION DISSOLVING PARLIAMENT

SI/2019-99 — PROCLAMATION ISSUING ELECTION WRITS

SI/2019-100 — PROCLAMATION SUMMONING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO MEET ON NOVEMBER 18, 2019

SI/2019-101 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING “FIRE PREVENTION WEEK”

Ms. Lévesque: These 21 statutory instruments have been reviewed by committee counsel and found to comply with all of the joint committee’s criteria. If a member wishes to consult one of these statutory instruments, they can obtain a copy on request, but we recommend that these files be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Colleagues, take a minute to go through the list to make sure you don’t have any objections to closing these files. Seeing no objection, we ask that counsel proceed as recommended.

I think that brings us to the end of our meeting. Do we have a date for the next meeting? I see you have a question, Mr. Garon.

[Translation]

Mr. Garon: Actually, Mr. Joint Chair, I was wondering, precisely on that topic, if there was a way to plan our meetings. After consulting with my whip, I think that there was some sort of agreement initially that we would meet every two working weeks in Parliament.

We have already deviated from that a little. If we could have a timetable for the next meetings — I think the schedule is pretty predictable between now and the end of June — that would help us a lot, and it would help those who come from further away even more.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I agree completely. I think everyone is on-side with that. We will try to stick to a two-week schedule. In fact, this meeting was not originally going to happen this week. We wondered about meeting on the first day after a break, but we insisted that it happen.

The clerks will send out a schedule as soon as possible. The joint chairs will work with them, come up with a plan and we’ll inform you as soon as we can. Are there any comments from the clerks on the scheduling problem? Okay.

We’ll let you know when the next meeting will be. We should have information by the end of this week. Thank you, colleagues.

(The committee adjourned.)