REGS Committee Meeting

---

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, November 17, 2025

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 11 a.m. [ET], in camera, to consider administrative matters; and, in public, to review Statutory Instruments.

Mr. Scot Davidson and Senator Yuen Pau Woo (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

(The committee continued in camera.)

(The committee resumed in public.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Colleagues, we are now continuing our meeting in public. Mr. Fortin, do you wish to make an intervention?

[Translation]

Mr. Fortin: Mr. Chair, yes, I have a motion to move. I will read it, if I may, but I believe that if you haven’t received it, you will see it. The motion reads simply as follows:

Given the unique situation regarding the distribution of documents at the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and in order to facilitate the work of the member substituting for Mr. Réal Éloi Fortin on this committee, that the committee agree to provide Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval with temporary access to the committee’s digital binder until the period of substitution concludes.

I believe this is consistent with what was discussed [Technical difficulties] among ourselves, but I am not certain. Tell me if there is an issue.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Do we have a seconder for the motion? Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, would you like to further explain the reason for this motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Fortin: Yes. I just want to work. The motion does not say it, but my parliamentary assistant, Ms. Blais, who is not here this morning, should also have access to the binder so that we can work. Otherwise, it will be quite chaotic. I am in the midst of reading everything, and each document is dozens and dozens of pages long. If I have to read it while simultaneously being here in the morning, it will make everyone’s job harder. I think if we received the documents in advance, my assistant and I could examine them and it would be much more efficient. That’s all.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you.

To explain to the rest of the committee, the situation is that Mr. Éloi Fortin is a substitute for a regular member on a somewhat extended basis. The documents are distributed electronically to all of you. You should have received them. However, he has not received them because he is a substitute. Normally, the standing member will forward the documents to the substitute. In this case, I understand documents were forwarded to Mr. Éloi Fortin. However, since he will be with us for a number of meetings, the motion request is that he directly receive additional documents. I hope that I am accurate in describing the purpose of your motion.

I wonder if the clerk would like to make a statement or explanation to clarify further?

[Translation]

Aimée Belmore, Joint Clerk of the Committee: I wanted to make sure you were in agreement, Mr. Fortin. The name of the committee in English will have to be amended to the correct one. Furthermore, we could state that access to the digital binder be given to all your staff rather than access for just one individual. That way, all members of your team would have access.

Do you agree with this small change?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Any discussion? I see none. I also see no opposition. The motion is carried. Thank you.

Let me now turn to our joint chair to proceed with the meeting.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Thank you, senator, and good morning, everyone. We will kick it off. This is the first meeting of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

Let’s begin on our agenda with the Special Item.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 2A:1.)

Geoffrey Hilton, Counsel to the Committee: I will start with some good news for members, which is that following the issuance of a notice of disallowance, these regulations have finally been repealed, and prior to the deadline imposed by the committee on the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

To explain what that means and why this is a special item file, issuing a notice of disallowance is the first step in the disallowance process, which is a process under the Statutory Instruments Act that, if followed through, compels a regulation‑maker to repeal the regulation, or a portion thereof, that was subject to the notice. In other words, issuing a notice of disallowance is no small matter.

Here, a notice of disallowance was issued in respect of the regulations in June 2024 on the grounds that the regulations were either vague in their application or not authorized by the terms of their enabling legislation, the Firearms Act, as well as on the grounds of the excessive time it was taking for the regulations to be repealed since the department first indicated in a March 2017 letter to the committee of its intention of repealing the regulations.

In addition to issuing the notice, the committee also at that time directed the joint chairs to write to the then Minister of Public Safety, expressing members’ desire to see the regulations repealed no later than December 31, 2024. This was done with the understanding that, should this not be possible, then members would move on to the next step of the disallowance process and consider tabling a report containing a resolution for the disallowance, or repeal, of the regulations.

In a June 7, 2024, response, the then minister assured the committee that the regulations would be repealed prior to the committee’s deadline. This commitment was then honoured when the regulations were repealed on December 16, 2024. With this repeal, the committee’s file on SOR/2014-198 may finally be closed.

As for the regulation that made the repeal, SOR/2024-276, it will be presented to the committee at a later date.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Thank you. That is all. Does anyone have comments on this file?

Mr. H. Gill: I agree with counsel’s recommendation to close the file. However, given that the department never responded to communications from the committee, it would be appropriate for the secretariat to send a letter reminding them of their obligations.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Anyone else? Does anyone have an issue with the committee sending a letter just to remind people of their obligations to respond? Counsel, what do you think?

Mr. Hilton: The only question I would have is whether members would like to see that eventual response or close the file but also still send the letter to the department advising them that the file has been closed but to remind them of that obligation under some doubt.

Mr. H. Gill: I think it would be fruitful to have that response shown to the committee just to ensure that we understand that they understand what we’re talking about and that this is not just a slap on the wrist and we move on. There has to be consequences. That would be my point of view.

Mr. Hilton: That is no problem. Counsel can bring the file back with the department’s response whenever it may be received.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Does the committee agree with this? Okay.

Now we move onto the second item.

SI/2020-33 — ORDER FIXING THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AS THE DAY ON WHICH THAT ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2020-46 — ORDER AMENDING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2020-215 OF APRIL 3, 2020

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 2B:1.)

Mr. Hilton: This is the first time these files are being presented before the committee.

The first order listed here, SI/2020-33, purported to fix the coming-into-force date of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act as the day in which the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, or the CUSMA, came into force. In other words, this order fixed the day on which the CUSMA Implementation Act would come into force as the day that the actual CUSMA comes into force.

The committee, though, has long held that the power to fix the coming-into-force date of an act means that an actual calendar date must be specified at the time the order fixing that date is made. Otherwise, it cannot be said that that date has been fixed on a plain reading of the word. If a date is not fixed, then, arguably, the statute subject to the coming-into-force order — here the CUSMA Implementation Act — is not validly brought into force. Departments, specifically, the Department of Justice, however, have also long disagreed with the committee’s position on this issue.

The specific issue in this file, though, was actually resolved with the making of the second order listed, SI/2020-46, which was made on June 25, 2020, and amended the first order to fix the coming-into-force date of the CUSMA Implementation Act as July 1, 2020. This is all to say now that there is no ongoing concern with the status of the CUSMA Implementation Act because an actual calendar date for its coming into force was eventually specified. Nevertheless, the Department of Foreign Affairs was asked why the first order, SI/2020-33, was drafted in the way it was if there were other precise ways in which the order could have been drafted.

To explain, the CUSMA’s coming-into-force provision provided that it was to come into force on the first day of the third month following the last notification from each of the three countries that their internal procedures for the entry into force of the new agreement was complete. The date of the last notification would evidently be known to the department upon receiving that notification, so if the department was theoretically always going to eventually know the specific date that the CUSMA would come into force, then it could have waited until it received that last notification to draft the coming-into-force order for the CUSMA Implementation Act. Instead, the department, seemingly prematurely, made SI/2020-33 when it did not yet know when it would receive that last notification and, by extension, when the CUSMA would come into force. Alternatively, if the department had always desired to coordinate the coming into force of the CUSMA Implementation Act with the coming into force of the CUSMA, then this simply could have been stated directly in the CUSMA Implementation Act.

In response to these issues, the department explained that, in order to send its notification to the U.S. and Mexico that its internal procedures were complete, it first had to make the CUSMA Implementation Act and its accompanying coming‑into-force order, that is, SI/2020-33. As well, it had been agreed that the U.S. would be the last to give its notification. This means that, altogether, the department was never going to be in a position to provide a specific coming-into-force date for the CUSMA Implementation Act and, therefore, it cannot be faulted for how SI/2020-33 was drafted.

However, the validity of other orders like SI/2020-33, which purport to fix a date for the coming into force of a statute that is not actually specified at the time the order is made, remains under some doubt. Yet, given that the committee has engaged previously with the Department of Justice, as well as directly with a former minister of justice on this question, and even tabled a report on the matter in 2014, and that the Department of Justice continues to firmly disagree with the committee’s view on this issue, it is likely departments will continue to use the drafting mechanism used in SI/2020-33 in the future.

For now, though, the amendment made by SI/2020-46 to SI/2020-33 addresses the concerns that would have been raised in SI/2020-33 had it not been amended, so there are no issues that require any further corrective action. As such, both files may be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Are there any comments from anyone?

Mr. H. Gill: I agree with closing the file, chairs. However, going forward, is there something that you could recommend to us to push with such agreements to say there is a best-practice model and you can say that this is how we should be doing it going forward instead of having the horse before the cart? Also, can there be a better explanation as to how it impacts normal Canadians at home when you have this kind of confusion with the various departments not having a specific date in mind and providing that date to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or whoever is in charge of trade to say that this is when this process is going to be implemented definitively? Do you know what I am saying? Thank you.

Mr. Hilton: The Department of Justice is definitely aware of the committee’s position, and I believe they have made an earnest effort in recent years to fix a specific date where possible. In cases where it is found by counsel that a specific date was not fixed, counsel would inquire with the department and ask them why that was the case and whether it was not at all possible to fix a specific date.

The committee has, in the past, been lenient with departments when it comes to the implementation of international agreements, given the complex procedure that that entails. Otherwise, the committee would have to approach each order on a case-by-case basis to see if it truly was not possible to fix a specific date, and if it was possible, why did the department not pursue that option.

Mr. McKinnon: I am still trying to get my head around all of this stuff. My understanding is that this issue arose because of CUSMA. We want to establish a general process to go forward with to apply to things beyond CUSMA, to general agreements as they go forward in the future. Is that correct?

Mr. Hilton: The issue in this particular file was that a statutory instrument called an order was made to bring into force the CUSMA Implementation Act. The problem with these files is that the order did not specifically fix a date as was required by the wording of the statute, the CUSMA Implementation Act.

Moving forward, the committee will analyze each order that purports to bring statutes into force — that is how statutes generally come into force — and would raise the issue with the departments if a specific date is not actually fixed.

Mr. McKinnon: We are dealing with a general process. We want to fix the way we do things in the future. It does not really matter about CUSMA itself because that is old news. We are trying to fix it going forward?

Mr. Hilton: In essence, yes. The idea of the CUSMA is not at issue here. It was the process to bring it into force. It was the specific statutory instrument to bring it into force. The committee has seen other examples, for example, where a statute could be related to Indigenous languages and the order did not specifically fix a date for coming into force. The issue in these file was not necessarily CUSMA or the CUSMA Implementation Act; it was the statutory instrument, the order, that attempted to bring it into force. As I mentioned earlier, the Department of Justice disagrees with the committee’s position on this issue. They don’t agree with the idea that there is any confusion or that there is any issue with the validity of these orders or the statutes that these orders purport to bring into force.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): We will move on to number 3, SOR/2019-174.

SOR/2019-174 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION)

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 2C:1.)

Julie Béchard, Counsel to the Committee: Initially, two issues were raised with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in November 2020, both of which concerned defective drafting in these regulations. The department agreed in a January 2021 letter to address these matters and later made the necessary corrections, in 2023, through SOR/2023-249, which members can see is currently before the committee at item number 5.

However, three additional matters were raised with the department in March 2025. The first concerns a spelling mistake in the French version, the second concerns a discrepancy between the English and French versions, while the third concerns the use of some redundant language. In May 2025, the department promised to address all three issues in a miscellaneous amendment package that it was aiming to complete by the end of 2025. For members’ information, the miscellaneous amendment regulations program allows departments to make minor, non-substantive amendments in an expedited manner. To date, however, the amendments have yet to be made. It is therefore suggested that a letter be written to the department requesting a progress report on these amendments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): I will open it up. Anyone with a comment?

Mr. McKinnon: The promise, then, was to correct this by the end of this year, and we are not at this point. On other hand, I have no objection to bringing forward a reminder if you want to do it.

Mr. D. Gill: I agree. They need to be reminded as to what is going on, but the year is almost coming to an end and we need to have the option of the process of disallowance explored to say, “Why are you not doing what you need to do, or do we need go to that level and get the response necessary from you?” That is my recommendation, chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Everyone agrees? Counsel? That is acceptable. There we go. Moving on.

[Translation]

SOR/2022-142 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS)

Ms. Béchard: This amending regulation resolves five of the six concerns raised by the standing joint committee in connection with SOR/2020-91, Regulations amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Emergencies Act and Quarantine Act).

Upon examination of SOR/2020-91, legal counsel identified one typographic error, one grammatical error, two discrepancies between the French and English versions, one superfluous word in the French version and one omitted word in the English version. Discussions among legal counsel and the department in 2022 and 2023 led to the resolution of the most recent issue raised in connection with SOR/2020-91 with the establishment of SOR/2023-249, the next point considered by the committee.

Given that SOR/2022-142 is not a problem in and of itself, it is recommended that this file be closed.

[English]

Mr. H. Gill: Thank you very much. I agree with counsel’s recommendation to close the file.

Ms. Hirtle: I also agree.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): I love when everyone agrees. This is great.

Item 5.

SOR/2023-249 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 2E:1.)

Ms. Béchard: These amending regulations, as their name indicates, were made with the miscellaneous amendment regulations program previously discussed at item 3. They make amendments that address various drafting issues in four other files of the committee, including the file discussed at item 3, which, as noted, remains open. However, the amendments also allow the committee to close file SOR/2020-91. For the other two files, one was already closed by the committee in May 2024 as a result of the amendments while the other one remains open. This file does not otherwise raise any new issues so it, along with SOR/2020-91, may be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Comments?

Mr. H. Gill: I agree with counsel’s recommendation to close the file.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): That is great. We all agree to close the file. Now, I’ll turn it over to my co-chair for the remainder.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you, co-chair.

Moving to the next group of items labelled Progress (?), I will turn now to Mr. Hilton for SOR/2002-164.

SOR/2002-164 — NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION ANIMAL REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-165 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION TRAFFIC AND PROPERTY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 2F:1.)

Mr. Hilton: In these files, amendments to address 14 issues relating to animal control on National Capital Commission land have been promised since 2004 but have yet to be made. These issues relate generally to matters of drafting, potentially invalid provisions and the unnecessary conferral of discretionary powers to the commission.

The committee last considered these files in April 2019, at which time members agreed that it was no longer necessary for witnesses to appear since there was evidence of progress being made on the amendments. For context, the committee, in an October 2018 letter, invited the then Minister of Canadian Heritage, who was at the time responsible for the management of the National Capital Act, as well as officials from the commission to appear before the committee to discuss the status of the 14 amendments, given their excessive delay in being made. However, subsequent letters from both the then minister and the commission in February 2019 suggested that enough progress was being made to forestall the necessity of witnesses. Further updates from the commission in 2019 and 2020 revealed that a preliminary draft of the amendments had been completed.

Six consecutive follow-up letters were then sent to the commission between 2020 and 2024. Only in November 2024 did the commission finally provide an update on the files. Unfortunately, though, the update is vague and does not provide any reassurance that the amendments are a priority for the commission. For the first file regarding the National Capital Commission Animal Regulations, the commission states that discussions have taken place with the Department of Public Works and Government Services on the amendments, but its recent work has focused instead on a broader set of potential legislative challenges. For the second file regarding the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations, the commission states that it has been in contact with the Department of Justice to seek information on the department’s recent work on traffic regulations at large.

In sum, it doesn’t appear that much, if any, work has been done on the amendments since the commission’s updates from 2019 and 2020. While counsel can inquire again with the commission on the status of the amendments, other options are available, such as instructing the joint chairs to write to the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Services and Procurement, who is the current minister responsible for the National Capital Act, or inviting the minister and/or officials from the commission to appear before the committee.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you, Mr. Hilton. There are three recommendations.

Mr. Kram: Given that we have a lot of new faces at this committee and in this Parliament, I will go out on a limb here and say that maybe no one in the room today was around in 2002 when this issue first came up, but I have confidence in counsel to have investigated the matter. I was wondering if we could get a bit more background as to why this issue came up in 2002 and 2004, and, in particular, what happened with the invitation in 2018 and why the minister didn’t end up appearing because it looked like the matter was about to be resolved. If counsel could elaborate a bit, that would be helpful.

Mr. Hilton: That’s essentially it. At that time, the committee had considered the file. Members were displeased with the lack of progress being made. It was agreed for the minister and officials from the commission to appear. However, subsequent letters from the minister and the commission showed, as suggested, that the amendments were forthcoming. That led to members holding off on bringing those witnesses in, shifting to just monitoring the amendments until they were finally made. Unfortunately, it seems as though that progress has now regressed.

Mr. Kram: So would it be accurate to say that the minister was uninvited because progress was forthcoming?

Mr. Hilton: That is correct. At that time, yes.

Mr. McKinnon: So after 20-odd years or so, I’m starting to think it’s not being taken seriously. I am wondering what kind of action we can take. We can bring the minister in. After 20-some years, it is absurd not having this fixed. Do we bring in the minister or write a letter? I don’t know what we can do.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): That’s recommendation number three. We can put that on the table.

Mr. Malette: Counsel, we have three recommendations before us. I was looking toward the third because, as my colleague pointed out, after 22 years, somebody is clearly not paying attention to us. Now, to rattle their cages, if you will, in the opinion of counsel, would it be appropriate to bring the minister before this committee, or would it suffice that, as the second part of the recommendation says, officials from the NCC be invited to appear to discuss and basically to explain? Do we have a recommended recommendation, if you will, or the most practical, I guess?

Mr. Hilton: Based on past experiences, in dealing with agencies such as the National Capital Commission as opposed to federal departments, ministers tend to distance themselves from the operation of agencies and will defer to the officials at the commission or agency in question. If it were a federal department, such as the Department of Transport, ministers are more willing to engage with the committee. In situations such as this one, the committee would have to see what the minister says before being able to decide.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): What is your view?

Mr. Malette: That was what I was half expecting. Would it be appropriate at this time then, chair, to recommend or move the motion that we adopt the second half of this recommendation, namely that officials from the National Capital Commission be invited to appear before the committee to discuss the current state of affairs?

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Are you moving the motion?

Mr. Malette: I will so move.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Seconded? Any discussion?

Mr. Kram: I just wanted clarification: The recommendation is to invite the Minister of Public Services —

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Officials. I think he is saying officials.

Mr. Kram: Okay. I think it would be better to have the officials and the minister. That way, we can convey to both the lack of progress and the importance of this actually getting moved ahead. If the invitation goes to the officials only, then there is a risk that this gets pushed back and no progress made. If, in 2018, the invitation was to the minister and now we’re saying that we’re moving backward and it is to the officials only, then that very much sends the wrong message about the lack of progress on this file. If the original invitation was to the minister, I think the invitation should be to the minister, and if the minister wants to bring the officials as well, the more the merrier, and we can certainly do that.

Ms. Mingarelli: I would like to propose a bit of a mix. What if we were to invite the National Capital Commission first to explain what is happening, because it is a 22-year-old case and it’s been a while, and then we can subsequently invite the minister. That way, we hear from both of them, and we can just close this out.

Mr. Malette: I can live with my colleague’s recommendation there. I understand where Mr. Kram is coming from, but as counsel explained, the ministers, regardless of whom they may be, on issues like this and with agencies such as the NCC, tend to distance themselves from that for operational or procedural reasons. I would like to stay with my original motion, if I could, that, rather than invite the minister and officials, bring the officials. If this committee is not satisfied with what we hear from those officials, then, by all means, invite the minister. However, if we’re going to invite the minister and he or she is simply going to distance themselves, as we’ve just heard from counsel, I don’t see the point.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): The motion on the floor is that we invite a senior official from the NCC. Can I get more comments on that and see if there is any opposition to it?

Mr. Malette: Is that a sub-amendment or —

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Are you moving a sub‑amendment?

Mr. Kram: Yes, I will, sure. My sub-amendment — and I might need help with the wordsmithing — is to invite the minister and the officials all in one meeting. We want results. We don’t have to have the minister here this week, this month or even this year. If we sent an invitation to both the minister and the officials for early in the new year, and we send the right signal that we mean business, I strongly suspect that, by the time the new year comes around, we will get a communication from the minister and the officials that they heard the message from us loud and clear and that they have actually done the work that was outstanding for two and a half decades. Then, perhaps we can look at uninviting the minister once they actually demonstrate that they have actually fulfilled their requirements. But it really does strike me as sending the wrong message that we invited the minister in 2018, we uninvited the minister because they were making progress, and now that they have clearly demonstrated that they are not making progress — we should go back to the original motion of inviting the minister. To say that you’re off the hook for not making progress very much sends the wrong message.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Okay, the sub-amendment is to invite both the minister and a senior official from the NCC.

Mr. McKinnon: I actually agree with this. To bring them to separate meetings will only take another 20 years, right? It makes sense to invite them both at once. The minister may well defer to the officials, but at least in the same meeting, they will have the opportunity to respond at the same time.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Any other discussion? We tend not to take formal votes here. I am trying to read the room. I am sensing that there is support for the sub-amendment. If there is strong disagreement, please speak up. If not, let’s go essentially with recommendation 3, but with the “and” rather than the “or.” Okay?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Perfect.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Let’s move on. Mr. Hilton?

SOR/2019-66 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MARINE PERSONNEL REGULATIONS AND REPEALING THE TARIFF OF FEES OF SHIPPING MASTERS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 2G:1.)

Mr. Hilton: This is the first time this file is being presented before the committee.

The committee here has been waiting since 2019 on the repeal and replacement of the marine personnel regulations, which, when complete, would resolve the two French-English discrepancies identified in this file. In February 2020, the Department of Transport indicated that the new regulations would be prepublished in Part I of the Canada Gazette sometime in 2021. However, 2021 passed without that prepublication occurring. For context, Part I of the Canada Gazette is where draft regulations are published for public comment.

In a November 2024 update, the department indicated that the complexity and scope of the project had led to a longer than anticipated timeline, where prepublication of the new regulations was now only estimated for summer 2025. Summer 2025 then passed without prepublication occurring.

If members therefore agree, counsel can follow up with the department on where it stands now with the new regulations. However, counsel is open to any other suggestions that the committee may have.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): We have a recommendation to follow up and obtain a status report, essentially. Are there any other ideas?

Mr. Kram: Maybe we could add that there should be a timeline for an expected response. In the past, a timeline of 30 days was the typical request for receiving the response.

Mr. Hilton: Counsel can include that in the letter to the department, that the committee expects a response within 30 days, and the file can be brought back at the earliest opportunity in the new year.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Agreed.

Next, number 8, which is Action Taken, a new category. Again, Mr. Hilton, please.

SOR/2022-175 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE VESSEL OPERATION RESTRICTION REGULATIONS

Mr. Hilton: This amending regulation addressed the remaining issue raised in connection with some 2018 amendments to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations. Specifically, an incorrect geographic coordinate in a schedule to the regulations, where the actual vessel operation restrictions were located, was corrected. I say “were located” in the past tense since the schedules to the regulations have since been repealed and moved to an administrative document maintained by the Department of Transport. Nevertheless, that 2018 file, SOR/2018-204, was closed prior to the schedules being repealed at the committee’s meeting on October 28, 2024, while the present file, SOR/2022-175, awaited a further, more substantive review. That further review is now complete, and no issues have been identified. As such, this file may be closed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Number 9, please, Mr. Hilton.

SOR/2014-48 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE LETTER MAIL REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-53 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Hilton: We have here a couple of Canada Post files.

For the first one, SOR/2014-48, all three issues in the letter mail regulations — one concerning a drafting matter and two concerning discrepancies between the English and French versions — have been addressed by some amendments made in 2021. One remaining issue concerning the clarity of a provision is continued in the committee’s file on those 2021 amendments, SOR/2021-91, so that SOR/2014-48 may be closed.

For the second one, SOR/2014-53, two remaining issues in the non-mailable matter regulations — one concerning insufficient guidance on the required stiffness of cards and postcards, and one concerning vague references of an international agreement that was incorporated by reference — have also been addressed by SOR/2021-91.

As a result, both SOR/2014-48 and SOR/2014-53 may be closed. As for SOR/2021-91, it will be presented to the committee at a later date.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Recommendation to close two files. No objection? So, closed.

Number 10, Mr. Hilton?

SI/2024-51 — NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE REVIEW AGENCY ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 2J:1.)

Mr. Hilton: This order repeals the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act Deputy Heads of the Public Service of Canada Order, and, in doing so, resolves an issue that was raised in an amending order to that order that concerned inaccurate and misleading cross-references. As a result, the committee’s file on that amending order, SI/2019-94, may be closed. The present file, SI/2024-51, does not otherwise raise any issues, and so, it, too, can be closed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): All in agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you.

We now move to our sections of the meeting where we don’t have a discussion but you see in your agenda the file numbers.

SI/2019-123 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2019-130 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2019-131 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2019-132 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2019-134 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2020-53 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2020-65 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SOR/2020-221 — ORDER AMENDING THE IMPORT CONTROL LIST

SI/2021-9 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2021-49 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): These are instruments that have been reviewed, and there is no comment from the legal counsel.

Likewise, the final section is on statutory instruments that had been repealed, spent or superseded.

SOR/2013-48 — COMPLAINTS (BANKS, AUTHORIZED FOREIGN BANKS AND EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS BODIES) REGULATIONS

SI/2020-23 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF STATE (DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AND YOUTH) AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2020-29 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2020-30 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SOR/2020-125 — ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES REGULATIONS APPLICATION EXEMPTION ORDER

SI/2020-67 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2021-93 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF HOUSING AND DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2021-94 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF HOUSING AND DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2021-95 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF HOUSING AND DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2022-2 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Again, in your agenda, there will be no presentation from counsel unless someone wants to raise a question or an issue.

Seeing no questions, we’ve come to the end of our agenda. Thank you very much for a successful meeting.

(The committee adjourned.)