Skip to main content

REGS Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at

Previous day publication Next day publication




[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 0830

The Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:30 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Joint Chairman) in the Chair.


The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gurman Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.)): I see a quorum. Before we proceed to the first item on the agenda, our next meeting will be on April 15, after the Easter break, before which the clerk can work on the budget.

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Tõnu Onu): If the committee is agreed, I can have a budget prepared for members.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Is it agreed that the clerk should proceed to prepare the budget?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. François-R. Bernier (General Counsel to the Committee): Mr. Chairman, members have before them the draft report prepared on the instruction of members. I have nothing to add to the report. It speaks for itself.

Mr. Lee: The report is extremely well worded. To those who understand the issue, the report is certainly clear. I assume that the reason we did not address disallowance is that the regulation no longer exists. If it did exist, it may have been a clear case for a revocation order. I believe that it articulates the position well and I think that we should adopt it as is.

Senator Lewis: I found the report to be quite explicit.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Shall we adopt the report as it is?

Mr. Lee: I so move.

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): The next item is Disallowance.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, to give some background on this item, in 1994, the joint committee decided to make renewed efforts to achieve a statutory codification of the current disallowance procedure. The February 8, 1995 letter from the chairmen to the Minister of Justice sets out the relevant information in that regard.

The specific issue of disallowance at the time was then subsumed in the broader debate then taking place over proposals to amend the Statutory Instruments Act which were put forward in Bill C-84 and then in Bill C-25. Therefore, in a sense, that issue became lost in the broader study. Those proposals, of course, did not proceed.

The last letter on file is a letter dated February 6, 1997, in which the committee wrote to the Minister of Justice requesting him to appear in order to discuss the reasons for which the government does not support putting the current disallowance procedure on a statutory footing. That letter was never answered.

As I mentioned, the broader proposals to amend the SIA were later abandoned and this, in a sense, brings us back to the issue the joint committee started to action in 1994; namely, the need to implement the recommendations of various parliamentary committees by codifying the disallowance procedure and broadening its scope so that it applies to all statutory instruments as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act.

Mr. Lee: Counsel has given a useful introduction. I believe that this issue should reappear on the agenda until we have cleared it, although it is a matter with which the committee is obviously unable to deal on its own. I understand that there has been private member's business introduced in the House of Commons directly related to this. I do not know what is happening in the Senate.

The best place for this matter right now is in the hands of some of the members of the committee from both the House of Commons and the Senate, and I think an informal consultation with some government members and ministers would help. There are certain members of the opposition in the House of Commons who could help, and in the Senate, there are probably some ears that could usefully be bent.

I do not think we can go much further on this. I am sure that if the chairman put the issue to a vote there would be significant agreement. I believe that some of us should work with the matter informally and bring it back to the committee when we think progress can be made.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): With regard to private member's business in the House of Commons, when I joined this committee and went through the material I noticed that there had been reports made but that nothing concrete had come out of them. The recommendations were probably not adopted.

I spoke to our general counsel to learn what was happening in that regard. I determined that some changes had to be made, and I looked into the possibility of a private member's bill. I found out that a former member on the committee had already introduced a private member's bill. As the house proceeded, nothing came out of that private member's bill. I tried to adopt that private member's bill.

Then, when I introduced my bill, I noticed, after discussions with Mr. Lee, that something was still missing out of it. There was room for improvement. One of the main clauses had been overlooked in that bill.Thus, I asked our legislative department to look into it again in order to formulate a good bill that would meet the requirements of what we really wish to do. That draft bill will be ready in a few days. I will send a copy to committee members.

We now have two choices. First, we can go through the channel of introducing a private member's bill, since we did not receive any response from the authorities on that issue. Second, the committee can do something as a whole. If we choose to explore other possibilities and do something as a committee, I do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, as Mr. Lee has said. Therefore, we are left with the second choice, the introduction of a private member's bill. We will have to see what the Senate can do in that regard.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for clarification of Mr. Lee's proposal?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Certainly.

Mr. Bernier: Was the suggestion that the committee afford a delay to individual members of the committee in order to examine possibilities of moving this file forward, with a view to bringing the file back to the committee if those possibilities did not bring results within a set period of time. Or was the suggestion that, as a committee, the committee abandon this issue to a private member's initiative? If it is the latter, I would point out that a statutory disallowance procedure was recommended in a report of this committee, which is why it has been pursued since 1977. That recommendation appeared in the first general report of the committee, which is why this committee has been pursuing it.

Mr. Lee, do you understand what guidance I need in this regard?

Mr. Lee: I was not suggesting that the project be abandoned to private initiative of members of the committee, but that, on a practical basis, it be deferred for a short period to allow members of the committee to talk it around a little bit. In that regard, I have in mind the government house leader and two or three other ministers who have a larger than normal role to play in this field. I think that would be useful.

A private member's initiative on its own, coming from the opposition, might not be seen to have as much weight. There are ways to make the thing look larger and to secure more support before it comes forward. If it comes forward as any kind of initiative, I would prefer that it go forward with the support of the house and all parties. In order to get that support, it needs some explanation.

There are not 20 people in the House of Commons who understand this issue. Therefore, I suggest that deferral to the initiatives of the chairmen, of myself and of Senator Lewis be pursued. I know that the senator is ready to go to war in the Senate on this one. The 1995 letter bears his signature at the top. That is my suggestion.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): That is a very good suggestion. It is a good point to defer until we have something solid with which to go forward.

Mr. Lee: I have in mind that this thing could come forward as a government bill. It could come forward as a private member's initiative. There is also another method whereby the committee could be requested or asked by the house or the Senate to draft a bill and to bring it forward. That is a process that would allow more short-term consultation with all the mechanisms and parties who have an interest in this matter. That would give it a much better base. That is a third option. We need some time to talk about it informally.

Senator Lewis: Can you bring me up to date on this matter? In regard to the letter to the Minister of Justice in February 1995, was there any follow-up? I assume there was no reply.

Mr. Bernier: There was a reply, senator. The reason I use the 1995 letter is because that is the one that best sets out the facts and considerations. The letter to which there was not a reply is the one from 1997 which is not in the material. By 1997, the committee had requested the minister to appear to explain the government's reasons for opposing codifying the disallowance procedure. There was no reply to that letter. The minister did not appear.

Senator Lewis: That is where it stands.


Ms. Venne: I am trying to understand. Mr. Lee is proposing that we defer this bill until we can proceed some other way, perhaps by way of a private members bill. In my view, and as everyone knows, such initiatives do not carry much weight.

I have to wonder why Mr. Lee would make a suggestion like this when everyone knows that private members bills rarely get to third reading stage. Why has the minister not appeared before us? Has she not deigned to respond? Perhaps we did not stress our point enough? It might be interesting to put our request to her once again. What do you think?


Mr. Lee: In terms of the first question, did I propose a private member's bill as a mechanism; I did not propose one. However, our chair has already once introduced a private member's bill for this purpose. I have, in fact, tried to bring to the committee's attention that there are three or more different ways of proceeding. The best way is to have the government bring in a bill. The second is to have the house instruct the committee to prepare a bill and bring it back to the house. I regard the third preferred option to be the private member's bill that would have the support of the whole house. There may be other ways of doing it as well.

As to bringing the minister here, it could be a useful exercise, after those of us who will do the informal consultations have completed our work. I would reject as an option asking the minister to come and discuss the matter with us at the committee.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in terms of file management, I will need something specific by way of time frame here and how much time would be required. Members of the committee change over time and events do occur. If I am told, Please put this file aside until we do this, I need to know when I am to bring this file back to the committee.

Mr. Lee: I would suggest that you bring it back the first meeting in the month of May. Is that acceptable?

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): Is there any need to have the minister appear? Can we explore that possibility?

Mr. Lee: Yes. After we bring it back to the committee some of us may have some good, or bad, news to report to the committee on the subject. That option is available to us. We are probably heading into a prorogation. That may or may not affect both committee membership and the lineup of business in the house.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): I believe that is acceptable. Is it agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): All right. We will put it on the agenda for May 15.


(For text of documents, see appendix, p.)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Grewal): General counsel?

Ms. Margaret Jodoin-Rasmussen (Counsel to the Committee): The committee has been asked to reconsider this file. In light of Mr. Ray's argument set forth on September 11, counsel now believes that a case can be made for the validity of section 12 of the regulations. We are asking the committee to reconsider its previous objection to this provision. Notably, the department does accept counsel's advice that section 55(c) of the act, the enabling provision, would benefit from revision and has undertaken to rectify that section.

Mr. Derek Lee (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Are there any comments from members on that best advice from counsel?

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: Essentially, I am recommending that we accept the department's position on the validity of section 12.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Counsel, you are satisfied the department has a reasonable basis by which to put that forward?

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: Yes. Reading Mr. Ray's letter, there is a reference to a Court of Appeal case in Alberta as well as a consideration of the French version of section 55(c), the enabling provision, which is broader than we would first have considered.

Essentially, the problem is a discrepancy between the English and the French versions of the enabling provisions, which gave rise to the problem in the first instance. The department agreed with counsel that the section must be rewritten.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): This will not prejudice any future dealings with that department?

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Are we agreed to accept counsel's position on this as our own and move on?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Please proceed, counsel.

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: As Mr. Bernhardt's note explains, the Department of Canadian Heritage believes that it can referentially incorporate provincial legislation by what they refer to as a generic reference to applicable provincial laws. They do this in order to avoid having to amend the applicable federal legislation every time the provincial law is changed.

From that, we conclude that the department views section 32(2)(a) as incorporating provincial highway traffic laws as amended from time to time. Unfortunately, the National Parks Act did not authorize ambulatory incorporation. That is the issue that should have been presented to the committee the first time around, and it should be pursued.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): This is not the first time we have had to deal with ambulatory incorporation by reference. It is a problem.

The citizens' problem with it is that, suddenly, a federal law will have all the horns and teeth that may come with a provincially enacted regulation in relation to a fee or whatever else they are dealing with. It is possible that that particular fee or regulation will not have the scrutiny or be made within the same legal paradigms as exist in our federal system here in Ottawa.

Counsel's recommendation is that we continue to pursue what we regard as an improper ambulatory incorporation by reference, is that right?

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: That is right, Mr. Chairman. The

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Does anyone have an intervention on that? Seeing none, are we agreed to continue to pursue this issue?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.




(For text of documents, see appendix p.):

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Next, under New Instruments, we have the Bathurst Island and Wager Bay National Park Withdrawal Orders.

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: There is a discrepancy between the English and French versions of section 4(c) of both instruments. This has been brought to the attention of the department. An amendment to rectify this discrepancy is forthcoming.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): That is good. Any comments from members? This will be put back on the conveyor belt?

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: It appears so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is it agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed


(For text of documents, see appendix p.)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): The next item is the Withdrawal from Disposal Order for the East Arm of Great Slave Lake National Park-Great Slave Lake.

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: In addition to the same discrepancy identified in the three previous files, this file presents drafting problems for which counsel has requested clarification and the department has promised action on all those issues.

With regard section 3, item 2 of the February 9 letter, the department was to consult the Department of Justice and an inquiry should be made as to the outcome of these consultations.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Any comments from members?

I wish to ask counsel a question about this business of incorporation by reference. Has anyone, anywhere, ever developed a more useful mechanism for dealing with this? If you have some individuals who had some skills in the field and you put them in a room for eight hours could they come up with a solution? Has anyone ever suggested that we might come up with a mechanism that would be more useful in dealing with this kind of problem?

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: From the committee's perspective?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Yes. From the point of view of those who draft and pass regulations.

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: In this particular instance, on the face of the regulation it looks like what they call a fixed incorporated reference, which is totally acceptable. It is a sound drafting technique. That was not the problem. The problem lies only in the department's response to us, where they indicated that the reason they had this referential incorporation was to avoid having to change the federal law every time the provincial law had changed. In effect, this means that unbeknownst to the citizen, the federal law appears constant when, in fact, it is not. It is really a misuse of a common drafting technique. It is a constant problem. It is merely a case of pointing it out to those giving the drafting instructions, perhaps.

Mr. Bernier: In answer to your question, the solution is simple. It resides in your enabling statute.

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: That is true.

Mr. Bernier: If you expect you will need authority to have open incorporations, incorporate documents or standards as amended from time to time, the enabling statute could stipulate as much. You must ask Parliament to give you that authority. If Parliament has provided that you may incorporate standards, or whatever, and that they will apply as amended from time to time, then there is no problem.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): I understand now.

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: That is the short answer.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is it agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Next, under Reply Unsatisfactory is the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation.

Mr. Bernier: In 1993, amendments were made by Parliament to the Canada Shipping Act providing for the existence of what were called response organizations, which would be responsible for maintaining equipment and resources in the event of an oil spill in various areas. These response organizations, private organizations or private corporations are designated by the minister, and each of them operates in a particular geographic area. Generally speaking, ships that carry oil are required to have what is called an arrangement with a response organization in the area in which they operate, and they must pay fees that are prescribed by that response organization.

The procedure prescribed by the act for the making of those fees is as follows: Fees are first proposed by a response organization. The minister must then ensure that a copy of the proposed fee is published in the Canada Gazette. There is then an opportunity for interested parties to object to the fees and there is an investigation procedure to be followed if that happens. Either way, if there are objections following the report from an investigation or if there are no objections, the minister must eventually make an order in which he either approves the fees as proposed or amends them.

Subsequent to that order, the response organization is required to actually establish and make its fees in accordance with the order of the minister. The minister is then required to publish the fees that have been established by response organizations.

As noted in counsel's letter of April 23, 1998, there have been serious problems of compliance with the prescribed procedure in terms of the initial fees that were made by response organizations and that are before the committee.

The minister, on April 2, 1998, approved certain proposed fees as amended. That order was published on April 18. I would note that publication of this order was not required by the statute. It is the fees subsequently established by response organizations in conformity with that order that are required to be published. These fees have not been published.

The department argues that because the response organizations have no choice but to establish their fees in the manner ordered by the minister, it makes no difference whether it is the minister's order or the fees that are established by response organizations that are published. The short answer to this argument is that it does matter to Parliament, apparently. The legislation is clear. It does not say that you can publish either the minister's order or the established fees. It requires the actual fees established by response organizations to be published, period. Those were not published, as required by law. Absent such publication, there is no official proof whatsoever of the legal existence of properly established fees at this time. That was issue number one. The departmental response on this aspect is quite unsatisfactory.

The second important issue raised by counsel in the initial letter of April 23 was raised after it was learned that response organizations asserted a right to impose those fees retroactively; that is, to impose the fees not as of the date on which they established them but as of the day they first proposed them. It then appears that, in an interview, the Minister of Fisheries endorsed the view that the act authorized retroactive imposition of fees. I do not think the act does, and explained so at length at point number 2, starting at page 2 of my letter of April 28. The reply that came in from Mr. Leclerc on September 14, 1998, did not deal with that point number 2, the issue of retroactivity. It dealt only with the first issue.

I then wrote again on September 28, 1998, further discussing the first issue, that of publication, and pointing out quite clearly that his letter ignored the issue of the date of coming into force of the fees established pursuant to section 660.4, again asking for a reply on that point.

Mr. Leclerc sent another letter on February 8, 1999. That letter, again, failed to address the second issue. I then wrote on February 12, 1999. At that point I indicated to Mr. Leclerc:

I now have your letter of February 8, 1999 in which you further discuss the matter of publication but fail, once again, to deal with the issue of the coming into force of these orders. As my request for a reply on this issue was both clear and explicit, I can only conclude that you are deliberately refusing to provide an answer.

Accordingly, I shall submit this file to the Joint Committee at an early date with my recommendation that the Committee move to request your appearance before the Joint Committee to provide that answer. I then received a letter dated March 2, 1999, from the same DIO. In that letter, the DIO lists the date on which the fees were established by response organizations. Quite clearly, again, that letter completely fails to deal with the issue of whether those fees — I have no doubt established on the date stated — can be applied retroactively, which is the issue that was raised, by now, practically a year ago.

In light of this, Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the suggestion I was planning to make a few months back to the committee, that this committee request the DIO to appear and provide the requested reply.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): It seems clear to the chair that we have two issues which are not addressed; one, we have a difference with the department as to whether the procedure used was adequate legally to put in place the fees, and the second issue, regrettably, has not been adequately addressed by the department. There seems to be a mental block here in articulating the legal basis for the retroactive application.

Therefore, I am interested in hearing what the justification for the retroactive application of the fees order would be. Are there other comments around the table?

Then, I suggest we set aside some time to hear the DIO from the department. He should have plenty of time to prepare. He has had a couple of years, I believe. In the usual manner, the committee will request his attendance, with or without some people to back him up if need be. If the clerk and counsel could make those arrangements at an early mutually convenient date we could perhaps have our answer.

Are we agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): The Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency.

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: Mr. Johannsen's reply of June 10, 1998, does not address the issues raised by the committee regarding the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency proclamation. This proclamation endeavours to regulate a product in non-designated areas when that product is not regulated in the designated areas. Second, it attempts to regulate processed chicken parts. Both activities are not within the authority of the act. Counsel's recommendation is that another letter be sent to the department.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): I had difficulty distinguishing. It is a conceptual thing. There were a number of images raised in the discussion documents here; when does a potato become a french fry, a french fry being a processed product and a potato being something else? Therefore, when does the chicken breast become the chicken finger. Is there an answer? Is there a goal we could achieve?

Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: Our perception is that it is very clear. The Farm Products Agency Act makes it quite clear that a proclamation does not regulate, other than poultry and parts thereof. It then goes on to specify where processed products can be regulated. It is quite clear. Perhaps the solution is simply to try to further elucidate the department.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): There being no further comments from members, we will go with that suggestion and continue the dialogue with the department. We will proceed to Reply Unsatisfactory (?)


(For text of documents, see appendix p.):

Mr. Bernier: This instrument makes five amendments requested by the joint committee. The department also agrees that the regulations should provide express authority for the superintendent to issue business licences.

Counsel had also questioned the lack of any review mechanism with respect to a refusal to issue a licence or the revocation or suspension of a business licence. Ms Senécal agrees that such a review provision or appeal mechanism should be included in the regulations. However — and this is where the satisfactory character of the reply becomes questionable — she proposes that this be done the next time the regulations are amended. If this is to occur soon, this response may well be satisfactory. If the regulations will not be amended for another three or five years, it might be thought unsatisfactory in light of the importance of an appeal mechanism in the licensing scheme.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): So the fear here is the arbitrary loss of a privilege by a citizen with no appeal mechanism.

Mr. Bernier: At this moment there is no recourse by the citizen, except to the courts. What was in place previously and what the department has agreed to reinstate is a provision under which a person who is refused a licence or whose licence is revoked can appeal to the minister for a review of the decision administratively and at a far lesser cost.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): So the department is conceptually on side. It is just a question of timing.

Mr. Bernier: Yes. Perhaps it is just a matter of writing to say that if they amend fairly soon, the committee will be satisfied, but that if it will be more than a year and a half the committee is not willing to wait and believes the amendment should be proceeded with immediately.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Based on previous experience of the committee, we would be irritated if they proceeded with an amendment and forgot to include this one.

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Keep that in mind, please.


Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: Mr. Chairman, an amendment had been promised in the near future on this file. However, since the amendment has not been made, a follow-up letter is suggested.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


Ms. Venne: We are often told that an amendment will be brought in shortly or that a provision will be examined at the earliest opportunity. We frequently receive responses like that. Could we not ask these individuals to be more specific when we write to them? Maybe then we would not get such evasive answers. Since we often resort to this course of action, this would prevent us from having to write to them to second time to ask them to stop using these delaying tactics.

Mr. Bernier: If we insist on it, officials will give us a date. However, will they respect that deadline anytime soon? I doubt it. In determining time frames for action, the committee proceeds as follows: when the issue at hand is drafting changes, generally speaking, when we are told that action will be taken in the near future, provided we see some movement within two years, we are satisfied with that. If, after two years, changes have yet to be made, then we demand immediate action.

In the case of an important substantive amendment, we seek assurances that they will get on this right away. That is more or less how we proceed.




Ms. Jodoin-Rasmussen: Mr. Chairman, the department has told us that they intend to incorporate Mr. Bernhardt's suggested rewrite of section 4(c) when they next submit their miscellaneous submission, which they say will soon be submitted to the Regulations Section of the Department of Justice for review. Therefore, we suggest that a letter is in order.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): That sounds positive. Is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Bernier: These have not been revoked so I suggest that another letter be sent to the agency.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, the issue here was to find drafting that would achieve the purpose of the government. Due in part to Mr. Rousseau's effort, the government has found a formulation that allows it to achieve its intent in orders of this sort. The agreed upon drafting will be followed in the drafting of future orders of this sort. This file can be closed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Congratulations to Mr. Jacques Rousseau for his input on this file.


(For text of documents, see appendix p.)

Mr. Bernier: This instrument makes some 48 amendments which had been promised to the committee. Action is promised in relation to most of the ten new points that were raised. A satisfactory explanation has been given on items 2 and 3. The point raised in item 8 has been taken care of by SOR/98-216.

Finally, with regard to item 10, the question raised in relation to the use of the miscellaneous amendment process to effect some of the amendments found in this instrument, as well as the agency's reply, may well be taken as explanatory. Counsel will monitor the progress of the amendments.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Thank you. Does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency operate independently? Is it one of the class in relation to which the disallowance procedure would not directly apply?

Mr. Bernier: Although the agency has been set up somewhat independently, the legislative powers it exercises are still exercised by the minister or Governor in Council.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): Let us keep our eye on that one. We will now move to Action promised and Action taken.


(For text of documents, see appendix p.)


(For text of documents, see appendix p.)


(For text of documents, see appendix p.)


(For text of documents, see appendix p.)


(For text of documents, see appendix p.)

Mr. Bernier: Dealing with instruments under both headings, we have, in addition to those I have identified in the course of the meetings, another 18 amendments requested by the committee that have been made, and action has been promised on another six items.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Lee): That is good.

Under Statutory instruments without comment there are 50 to 60 regulatory instruments. Thank you for your good work. There being no further business, we will adjourn.

The committee adjourned.