REGS Committee Meeting

---

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, February 23, 2026

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

Senator Yuen Pau Woo (Joint Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Good morning. I remind all participants that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed.

This is a hybrid meeting. I remind members of the committee to please keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the joint chair.

I wish to ask all in-person members to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please ensure to keep your earpieces away from microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker. I feel like a parent reminding recalcitrant children. These are my instructions.

Thank you for your cooperation. Should any technical challenges arise, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.

I will now turn the floor over to the House joint clerk for the election of the vice-chairs.

Aimée Belmore, Joint Clerk of the Committee: Good morning. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the government party. I am now prepared to receive motions for the first vice-chair.

Mr. Al Soud: I would like to nominate Ms. Mingarelli.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Belmore): It was moved by Mr. Al Soud that Ms. Mingarelli be elected first vice-chair of the committee. Are there any further motions?

I will now put the motion to the committee.

It has been moved by Mr. Al Soud that Ms. Mingarelli be elected as first vice-chair of the committee.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Belmore): Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the second vice-chair must be a member of the opposition from a party other than the Official Opposition. I am now ready to receive motions for the election of the second vice-chair.

Ms. Mingarelli: I would like to move the nomination of Mrs. DeBellefeuille as second vice-chair.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Belmore): Thank you very much. Ms. Mingarelli moves that Mrs. DeBellefeuille be appointed second vice-chair of the committee. Are there any other motions?

Ms. Mingarelli moves that Mrs. DeBellefeuille be appointed second vice-chair of the committee. Is it the pleasure of the members to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you. Congratulations again to our new vice-chairs. Also, a warm welcome to some colleagues from the House and the Senate who are joining this committee for the first time.

Before we start, I have some good news to share with you, which is that one member of the legal team has been nominated by the Library of Parliament management team for the Parliamentary Librarian’s Award for Individual Excellence. That person is Mr. Geoffrey Hilton, who is seated to my right. To be nominated, one must demonstrate exemplary performance, collaborative spirit, outstanding service to clients and professional integrity.

Mr. Hilton has been a pillar of our legal team since joining the library in 2018, and he has been providing exceptional client service to our committee in the discharge of our mandate. He is diligent, committed and has always provided us with well‑reasoned advice on our files. You will hear again from him today.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hilton did not win. However, I’m sure that members would agree that it was an honour to have someone from our hard-working team celebrated and recognized in this way. Our hockey teams did not win either, but we love them all the same and we congratulate them, and we congratulate Mr. Hilton on his nomination.

Moving on now to the business of the committee, we start with letters to and from ministers.

Julie Béchard will lead us on this item.

[Translation]

Julie Béchard, Committee Counsel: Thank you, Joint Chair.

Three letters addressed to two former ministers of national revenue remain unanswered. The issue raised is serious, as it appears that the law has not been applied for five years. The Canada Revenue Agency did not collect past employment insurance contributions on certain supplementary payments made to employees who were unable to work because they were caring for a seriously ill child or adult. The administration was following guidelines, not the law.

No individual has been penalized, but the issue remains: The agency failed to comply with the law for a significant period. A detailed analysis of the issue can be found in the supporting documents for this meeting.

The committee has three options. The first option would be for the joint chairs to write a new letter to the Minister of National Revenue. The second would be for the committee to invite representatives from the Canada Revenue Agency to appear, and the third option would be for the Minister of National Revenue to be invited to appear before the joint committee. How would you like to proceed?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you. Comments, please.

Mr. Kram: Thank you. I realize I have only been on this committee for a little under a year, but this is probably the most serious case we have come across so far. This is not a matter of civil servants working more slowly than we would like. This is a matter of disregard for the rule of law. That is certainly serious when you have lawmakers making laws, and then they are not being followed.

I certainly don’t want to cause any harm to the people who have benefited from this program, but it is important to realize that the committee urged the minister to seek retroactive validation in Parliament for the non-collection of this benefit. This all could have been resolved with one or two lines in a budget implementation act, or BIA, over the last several years.

Just sending another letter, as we have done over the years, is not going to be sufficient. I would like us to pursue options 2 and 3. Hopefully, if we have the minister and the civil servants here to answer questions, it will be a quick question-and-answer session in which they will say, “It will be one line in the next BIA. Thank you, have a nice day.”

However, I would be reluctant to just write another letter because we would be continuing to let them off the hook, so to speak.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): And they have not responded to our previous two letters.

Mr. Beech, it seems that you do not have an approved headset.

Mr. Beech: I have an approved microphone, though.

It is great to be at committee. I appreciate going through the agenda. This is my first. I have less time than Mr. Kram here, but I am excited about getting into the details of the work of our Parliament and regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Champoux: I would like to raise a point of order.

With all due respect to Mr. Beech, it seems to me that it is well known that virtual proceedings must be conducted using a headset approved by the House. This cannot be a case-by-case situation. It is a well-known rule. Even if one has the best equipment available, I believe we must respect these rules for the sake of our interpreters’ health. This is something that should not be open to debate or negotiated on a case-by-case basis, in my view.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I will put Mr. Beech on hold and see if there are comments from other members.

Mr. Beech: Wait a second. I came in early and had my audio approved already. I have used this microphone for five years in the House and at committees, so I will not be silenced after already going through the due process.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): I am confirming with interpretation.

I apologize for the confusion. I am not sure why the clearance did not go through. Maybe staff can work with Mr. Beech to figure out the best way for this not to happen again.

Mr. Beech, you had a comment on the first item, please.

Mr. Beech: Yes. I read through the agenda today, and I read the letters. I share the concern that it seems that, despite multiple letters to multiple ministers, this has not been addressed. It seems like the next action is to get the department in here. I would suggest we could do that rather quickly. Maybe it is as simple as a few lines in a legislative instrument, like the BIA, as was suggested by my colleague opposite, or maybe there is something else that we need to be aware of.

I would suggest we pursue getting the department in here as quickly as possible. If we are unsatisfied with their response, we can make a quick response to the minister, as well, but the department is probably the appropriate move right now.

Ms. Mingarelli: Further to my colleague’s comments on this, I would like to further support a letter and then invite the department. It is fine to invite the minister, but it may take a lot longer for that to happen. By the time the minister is able to come, we could have already resolved this issue. So, for the sake of expediency, I think a letter and a departmental invitation would be the most practical.

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

Mr. Kram: My concern is that this has been dragging on for quite a few years now. I am okay waiting an extra few weeks or months if it means getting both the officials and the minister present. I am concerned that this is not a matter of slow administration, or a few i’s not dotted or t’s not crossed; this is a matter of the department not following the law.

It would be better if we had both the officials and the minister present to address the issue. I strongly suspect we could get this to the finish line a lot faster if we had both present instead of running the risk of one of them passing the buck, so to speak.

If we also want to send a letter, I don’t object. I think we can do all three; that would be reasonable, too.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): The letter would invite officials and/or the minister to come, presumably. It would not be just a letter to remind the minister that they haven’t responded.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: To your point, chair, when we send the letter, it should express frustration, invite the officials and make clear that if the matter is not resolved by the time the officials attend or shortly thereafter, the minister will be expected to attend and answer to the committee as well.

I think that would be a compromise position between the folks who have intervened so far.

Mr. Kram: I have an idea: Why don’t we invite the officials and also the minister but not necessarily to appear at the same time? If the officials answer all of our questions and resolve everything, then we can hold on to the option of uninviting the minister.

I would feel more comfortable if we could get the ball rolling. We send the letter to both and invite them both. Probably, it is a safe bet the officials can be available before the minister. It would be a shame if we wasted this time in delaying the invitation to the minister in the event that the answers from the officials are not satisfactory.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you for that. It is possible to craft a letter where we tell the minister, “We need an explanation from you. We intend to invite you in person, but, in the meantime, we have invited your officials to come, and we hope that they can resolve the matter speedily.” If that is the case, we don’t have to proceed with the minister’s invitation. Does something like that work?

Mr. Kram: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): A tentative invitation will be put out, and the minister will be put on notice, but the immediate ask is for officials to come to see if they can solve the problem. Can we do that?

Okay. Good. Thank you.

Let’s move on to the next item.

SOR/2015-181 — SECURE AIR TRAVEL REGULATIONS

Ms. Béchard: These are the Secure Air Travel Regulations. Previously, they required air carriers to exclude passengers if they did not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification presented or if they did not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification presented.

The Department of Public Safety later repealed these requirements in 2019. However, at the committee’s meeting of May 2, 2022, counsel was asked to review the regulations on the basis of whether the repeal of those provisions containing the discriminatory requirements was enough to ensure that the regulations were fully compliant with the Canadian Human Rights Act. Counsel was also asked about the nature of the consultations that were held by the department in the repeal of the provisions, specifically with a transgender and non-binary community, who might have been disproportionately affected by the provisions in question had they not been repealed.

Now, after a thorough review by counsel of both the regulations and the Canadian Human Rights Act, counsel can confirm there are no other provisions of the regulations that could be seen to contravene the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As for the level of consultations held in the repeal of the two provisions, the regulatory impact analysis statement accompanying the regulations that made the repeal, SOR/2019-325, makes no specific mention of any consultations held with the transgender and non-binary community. However, the regulations’ enabling authority, the Secure Air Travel Act, does not require the department to undertake any specific consultations in the making of regulations under the act.

Therefore, any consultations that the department undertook would have been done as a matter of their own policy, and, as such, any concerns around any consultations in the making of SOR/2019-325 would fall outside the mandate of the committee, since the committee’s work focuses on the legality and procedure of regulations and not its underlying policy. There is, at this point, now, nothing left to pursue on this file, so it may be closed.

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

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): All agreed? Yes?

Ms. Mingarelli: I was going to agree that we should close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): It is out of scope for our committee, essentially. So decided.

I wish to recognize Senator Dean, who has joined us. Welcome.

The next item is a new instrument, SOR/2024-113. Ms. Béchard, please walk us through it.

[Translation]

SOR/2024-113 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (UKRAINE) REGULATIONS

Ms. Béchard: Thank you, Joint Chair.

The Special Economic Measures Act requires that regulations be laid before each House of Parliament within five days of their making.

On August 8, 2024, the Department of Foreign Affairs contacted the joint committee on its own initiative to inform it that it had failed to comply with this requirement due to an administrative error, which has since been corrected.

It should be noted that regulations are not invalid simply because they were not filed within the prescribed time limit.

Following a thorough review of the regulations, no further issues were identified.

The file may therefore be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Do we need to know what the administrative error was, or is that irrelevant? Do we take it that an error was made and it will be rectified?

Ms. Béchard: Yes, unfortunately.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Okay.

Mr. D. Gill: I agree with the counsel to close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Okay. Closed. Thank you.

We’re moving on to the next set of items, which falls under “Part Action Taken.” Mr. Hilton will walk us through this one.

SOR/2018-69 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 4D:1.)

Mr. Hilton: This is the first time this file is being presented to the committee. As its name suggests, it makes several amendments to various regulations made by the Department of Health. With these amendments, the committee was able to close three of its files. At the same time, 11 new issues were also raised with the department, many of which have since been corrected by subsequent amending regulations. The corrected issues related generally to matters of drafting, as well as unnecessary subjective language attached to decision-making powers granted to the Minister of Health.

However, five matters remain to be resolved, all of which concern the Food and Drug Regulations. Members can see in the briefing note a more detailed explanation of each issue, but, in general, three of the issues relate to unnecessary discretionary powers afforded to the minister. One relates to, again, unnecessary subjective language attached to decision-making powers granted to the minister, and one relates to a provision of the amending regulation that made different amendments to the same provision.

In all but one case, the department has indicated that it believes no corrective action is necessary. In the one case where it was willing to make amendments, the one with the unnecessary subjective language, the department indicated that any possible amendments, pending further review, could be made in 2024. That timeline, though, passed without any amendments being made.

It has now been a few years since the committee has communicated with the department on this file. Therefore, it is recommended that a letter be sent to the department seeking its reconsideration on the issues where it did not believe that amendments were required and further information on the one issue where it had indicated that amendments were a possibility.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Thank you.

Mr. H. Gill: As is usual practice, we could ask them for a 30‑day deadline to provide the answers on these issues. It seems to me that they keep going at it and not providing any reasonable answers, so I would urge us to write a strongly worded letter. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): Okay. Please.

Ms. Mingarelli: I would agree that a letter is acceptable and reasonable, with a 30-day deadline.

The Joint Chair (Senator Woo): All right. We will do that. Thank you, Mr. Hilton.

Now, let me turn to the joint chair to chair the rest of the meeting.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Here we go. Good morning, everyone. I am unbelievably hungover from that hockey game today, too, so we’re going to get through this so quickly your heads will be spinning.

I will turn item no. 5 over to our legal counsel here.

[Translation]

SOR/2022-15 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CLASS II NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND PRESCRIBED EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 4E:1.)

Mr. Hilton: Thank you, Joint Chair.

This statutory instrument was not transmitted for registration within seven days after it was made, as provided for in subsection 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act.

This failure is due to the fact that the instrument was made by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, but was not approved by the Governor-in-Council until six months later.

This approval requirement is an additional step imposed by the enabling legislation, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Although the requirement for transmission applies from the date the instrument is made, the instrument in question was not officially adopted or ready to be transmitted or published before its approval.

Failure to comply with this requirement has no practical consequence, in the sense that it would not lead to the invalidation of the regulation in question, but it can nevertheless be considered a disregard for the will of Parliament.

The commission recognized that the requirement under subsection 5(1) was not met, which it attributed to complications arising from the 2021 federal election campaign and the resulting change of ministers.

Furthermore, the commission states that it has modified its internal procedure to prevent the problem from recurring.

Given that no corrective action is required, the commission’s assurances may be considered satisfactory in the current circumstances.

This file may therefore be closed.

[English]

Mr. D. Gill: I agree with the counsel to close the file.

[Translation]

Ms. Mingarelli: I also agree that the file may be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Okay. Here we go. Let’s move on to item no. 6.

SOR/2024-276 — REGULATIONS REPEALING THE FIREARMS RECORDS REGULATIONS (CLASSIFICATION)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 4F:1.)

Mr. Hilton: As the title of this instrument suggests, this file completed the repeal of the Firearms Records Regulations (Classification), which came as a result of a notice of disallowance that was issued by the committee in June 2024. That file was subsequently closed following the committee’s meeting on November 17, 2025. However, a couple of issues were still identified in this instrument.

To explain, under the Firearms Act, proposed regulations are required to be tabled in each house of Parliament, unless the Minister of Public Safety forms the opinion that the changes made by the proposed regulations to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that the proposed regulations need not be tabled.

In that case, though, the minister is still required to table in each house a statement of the reasons why they formed that opinion. According to the sessional papers of both houses, the statement of reasons for this file was received by the clerks of each house for tabling prior to the instrument’s making. This departed from the department’s usual practice of tabling the statement following the making of a regulation, but this was not in and of itself a problem.

What was problematic was that the order-in-council preceding the text of this instrument, known as the executive portion, was factually incorrect and misleading by stating that the minister was going to have the requisite statement of reasons tabled, when he had, in fact, already done so.

The department acknowledged that the earlier tabling of the statement of reasons departed from its usual practice, which, it stated, was due to wanting to complete the repeal prior to the end of 2024 deadline previously imposed by the committee, but the department didn’t otherwise acknowledge the fact that the executive portion of this instrument was factually incorrect and misleading.

However, it is likely that the order-in-council was drafted as if the tabling of the statement of reasons was going to occur following the making of this instrument, which, as noted, was the department’s usual practice, but that the verb tense to account for the earlier tabling was inadvertently overlooked.

While an amendment to the order-in-council could be sought, the effect of the order-in-council is spent, so any amendment would essentially be moot in nature. Therefore, the department’s response on this point can be considered satisfactory.

Still, once the statement of reasons was formally recorded in the Journals, the instrument in the title of the statement was incorrectly noted as the “Regulations Amending the Firearms Records Regulations (Classification)” and not the “Regulations Repealing the Firearms Records Regulations (Classification).”

The department never acknowledged this error, but given its relatively minor nature and it being unclear whether the department has any control over corrections to the Journals of the houses, the timing resources required to correct this error may not be justified. That all said, counsel could follow up with the department on this point, but the file could also simply be closed. How would members like to proceed?

Mr. H. Gill: What are the possible consequences of these kinds of errors? Could we say that it is because they moved in a way that is not regular practice? What are the potential consequences of these sorts of actions? Is this something that we as a committee can submit to the Journals branch and say, “These were the corrections that needed to be made. Can we do that on our behalf here, instead of the minister?”

Mr. Hilton: The general confusion would be to any member of the public that was following this file and trying to track when the statement of reasons was tabled. As it was written, the executive portion said that it was going to be tabled when it, in fact, already had been. So anybody looking to find that statement of reasons would logically only begin after the order-in-council was made. The practical effect is simply confusion to the public.

As for the committee writing to the clerks of each house regarding the Journals, we would have to confirm the necessary contact information, but that certainly could also be a possibility.

Mr. H. Gill: It would be worth our while to pursue that angle going forward on these types of issues to allay the confusion. The public is already confused as it is on these matters, so let’s help them out. Thank you.

Ms. Mingarelli: Thank you. Further to MP Gill’s comments, my initial reaction would be to close the file because the corrections were minor. However, I’m not opposed to requesting corrections. One option would be that we just send a letter saying, “Please do better next time.” There are mistakes here, but because it is minor — the letter clearly expresses that. However, again, I also accept the possibility of requesting corrections.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Counsel, are you okay with that? Everyone else? Okay. Moving on to item no. 7.

SOR/2013-82 — SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 4G:1.)

SOR/2018-136 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE BY THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION (SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER)

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 4G:3.)

Ms. Béchard: The last time these files were at committee on October 7, 2024, members instructed counsel to follow up with the Department of Employment and Social Development on the status of its promised amendments.

The amendments concern the drafting of discretionary powers afforded to the minister and a discrepancy with the English and French versions. The department had committed in January 2022 to make certain amendments as part of its review of the Social Insurance Number Regulations. In its recent correspondence, the department indicated it initiated the work in 2025, but now estimates that the amendments will only be completed by spring 2027. Generally, the committee considers two years a reasonable time frame for promised amendments to be made.

The committee has the option of having counsel continue to monitor the department by sending a letter to inquire on the status of the promised amendments. Alternatively, given the extensive time it has taken the department to make the amendments, the committee can also choose to have the joint chairs send a letter to the Minister of Employment and Social Development. The last option would be to invite officials from the Department of Employment and Social Development to appear before the joint committee.

How would the committee like to proceed?

Mr. Kram: I have a question for the analysts. I’m not sure who to point this to, but in the briefing document on page 2, there is one line where it says, “. . . the time now it is taking for the remaining amendments to be made is trending towards unreasonable.” I was wondering if one of the analysts could shed some light on that statement.

Ms. Béchard: In my speaking notes, I said that the committee considers two years a reasonable time frame for promised amendments to be made. The department committed in January 2022 to making them, so the committee doesn’t know why they only started the work in 2025. The committee may want to get some answers.

Mr. Kram: Okay.

Ms. Mingarelli: Thank you for your comments. Since it has been quite some time already, one option is a letter to the department and the minister, indicating a firm timeline requesting a response. We can certainly invite them, but it might just be faster to request a response by letter.

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

Mr. Kram: I wonder if we could have some sort of a hybrid solution where we do both. I am concerned that they did not start working on this until after their own deadline.

I would be curious to hear from the officials in order to get an answer to that if they are not able to resolve the matter before they appear, so I wonder if we could have some hybrid solution where we demand an answer by a certain deadline, and, if we don’t get an answer by that deadline, then the officials appear to answer the questions in person.

Mr. Erskine-Smith: First, congratulations, Mr. Davidson, on your coup. Condolences to Dan Albas.

Second, I agree. I think a stern letter that sets a firm timeline is the way to go. We can reconvene if they fail to meet that timeline and then call in officials.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Any other comments from anyone else? Do officials want to respond?

What kind of a timeline would be reasonable to the committee?

Mr. Erskine-Smith: I trust you, Scot.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): You are all over it like a cougar on a crippled chicken. We are going with 30 days, it sounds like. Agreed? Is that good with you, officials?

Okay. We will move on to item 8.

[Translation]

SOR/2020-281 — RULES AMENDING THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SOR/2021-150 — RULES AMENDING THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURTS

SOR/2021-244 — RULES AMENDING THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES

SOR/2021-246 — RULES AMENDING THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES (LIMITED TERM)

SOR/2023-151 — RULES AMENDING CERTAIN RULES MADE UNDER THE CANADIAN TAX COURT ACT

SOR/2025-46 — RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE CHIEF MILITARY JUDGE

SOR/2021-149 — RULES AMENDING THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES IN RELATION TO CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION

SOR/2021-151 — RULES AMENDING THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES

SOR/2021-245 — RULES AMENDING THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES (ENFORCEMENT)

SOR/2022-253 — RULES AMENDING THE RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE COURT-MARTIAL

SOR/2024-73 — RULES AMENDING THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Mr. Hilton: Thank you, Joint Chair. In 1988, the joint committee adopted its Forty-Fourth Report, which dealt with the decision to cease reviewing statutory instruments issued by certain statutory tribunals.

In this report, it was agreed, in the interest of judicial independence, not to examine the rules of practice and procedure of those tribunals that Parliament intended to have the same degree of independence as that guaranteed to the superior courts by the Constitution Act, 1867, namely those whose members are appointed to hold office during good behaviour for an indeterminate period.

It was therefore agreed that matters concerning the rules of tribunals such as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada, though not limited to them, would be excluded from consideration.

Consequently, the 11 open files mentioned in the briefing note concerning the rules of practice and procedure of various tribunals were not reviewed by the legal advisers and may be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Comments?

Mr. D. Gill: I agree with counsel to close the files.

[Translation]

Ms. Mingarelli: I agree. We can simply close the files.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): We are moving on to item 9.

SOR/2002-241 — RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION.

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 4I:1.)

SOR/2017-17 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 4J:1.)

Mr. Hilton: The next two files are being presented under the category “Action Taken.” In the past, the committee has agreed not to go into each item unless anyone has a specific question to pose. I will just pause to see if anyone wants to intervene. If not, counsel can move on.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): MP Nate Erskine-Smith really wants to draw this out.

Are you okay with counsel’s decision on these?

Mr. Erskine-Smith: I’m so glad we are still pursuing this rule, and we’re all good.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Okay. We’ll call it the “Erskine-Smith rule.” Moving on.

SI/2021-43 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2021-79 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2021-80 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2021-81 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2021-85 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES AS THE RESPONSIBLE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE REFERENDUM ACT

SI/2021-86 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES TO BE THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT

SI/2021-90 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2021-91 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2021-97 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2023-51 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF SMALL BUSINESS AND TOURISM AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT

Mr. Hilton: The next item is a list of 10 statutory instruments that have been reviewed by counsel and found to comply with all of the committee’s scrutiny criteria. It is, therefore, our recommendation that these files be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Is everyone okay with that? We could go into each one in detail, but is everyone good with that? Great. Thanks, counsel.

SOR/2019-269 — RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT EXEMPTION ORDER (JAMMERS —ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE)

SOR/2013-191 — APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 35(2)(B) OF THE FISHERIES ACT REGULATIONS

SOR/2020-199 — UNITED STATES SURTAX ORDER (ALUMINUM 2020)

SOR/2019-282 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE TUVAIJUITTUQ MARINE PROTECTED AREA

SI/2022-53 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF HOUSING AND DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION WHO IS A FEDERAL MINISTER TO BE THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PROHIBITION ON THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY NON-CANADIANS ACT

SI/2023-52 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF SPORT AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND SPORT ACT

SI/2021-89 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF SPORT AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES TO BE THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT IN RESPECT OF SPORT

SI/2022-3 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT

SI/2023-74 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT

SI/2025-18 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF STATE (FEDERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO) AS THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT

Mr. Hilton: The final matter for today is a list of 10 statutory instruments that were found to have been repealed, spent or superseded prior to review by counsel. As these instruments are no longer of any force or effect, it is our recommendation that these files be closed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Davidson): Is the committee good with that? That’s great.

I want to thank all committee members for the meeting today. Thanks, counsel. Thanks to all our staff and to the MPs online.

(The committee adjourned.)