Past Session:

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 10 - Evidence, September 19, 2001

OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 19, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 5:35 p.m. to consider the proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal an Act and certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.

Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, today we begin our study of this matter.

Usually we ask the experts who appear before us to summarize their viewpoint, following which we enter a question and answer period. If there are other experts with you, we will invite them to respond if they can help with a particular point.

I would ask the Department of Justice to begin.

[Translation]

Mr. Luc Labelle, Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice: It is a pleasure for me to take part in the consideration of the 2001 proposals for a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. This process constitutes a major collaborative effort between legislative drafters and members of Parliament, the aim being to ensure that the body of federal statutes is brought up to date to reflect current federal law. The Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program was initiated in 1975. Over the years, nine Acts have been passed.

The aim of the Program is to allow for minor, non-controversial amendments to federal statutes in an omnibus bill, without having to wait until a particular piece of legislation is reviewed in depth. If such proposals are not included in a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment bill, they may never be enacted since they are not sufficiently important to justify a separate bill.

[English]

Basically, the procedure involves a pre-study by committees of both Houses; any proposal to which either committee objects is dropped. The approved proposals only are then printed in a bill, which is introduced in Parliament and customarily read three times and passed without debate or subsequent consideration by committee.

Today begins the committee stage. We are here to assist you in satisfying yourselves whether these proposals meet the program criteria and should be passed into law.

[Translation]

Each proposal has been approved by the responsible agency. An interdepartmental meeting was also held to advise the departments concerned of the proposals. The program criteria are listed on page 1a of the proposals.

Basically, the proposed amendments must not be controversial. They must not involve the spending of public funds, not prejudicially affect the rights of persons, not create a new offence and not subject a class of person to an existing offence.

[English]

The main criterion for proposals to be included in this expedited process, usually without full debate in Parliament, is that it not be controversial. I will refer to Minister Otto Lang's comment on that criterion in his second reading speech when he announced the program in 1975. He said: "The determination of this criterion will not be difficult to establish. A proposal would become controversial as soon as one of the parties expressed opposition to it."

That is the essence of the non-partisan process. If there is a substantial disagreement with any of the proposals in this package, the proposal will be dropped.

[Translation]

That concludes my opening remarks. My English speaking colleague Edgar Schmidt and I will be happy to answer your questions. I would just like to mention that clauses 33 and 34 which propose amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (199) have been withdrawn at the request of our client, Environment Canada. Clauses 72 and 73, as well as the Schedule which proposes amendments to the National Capital Act, have also been withdrawn at the request of our client, Heritage Canada.

A number of witnesses have agreed to be here to answer your questions about specific proposals: Suzanne Pelham Belliveau will answer any questions you may have concerning the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; Bruce Lyng will field questions about the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act; Meena Ballantyne, Karen McNeil, Éloïse Arbour, Glen Mostowich and Guy Gauthier will answers questions about the National Capital Act and the National Film Act; Denys Vermette, John Waddington and Bernie Shaffer will field any questions you may have concerning the Nuclear Safety and Control Act; and finally Jeff Watters will be happy to answer your questions about the Weights and Measures Act.

The Deputy Chairman: Regarding the National Capital Act, several of the clauses are missing.

Mr. Labelle: That is correct.

The Deputy Chairman: Ipso facto, are several amendments being proposed?

Mr. Labelle: Two clauses as well as the schedule to the National Capital Act have been withdrawn.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: My second question is this: Since we are dealing with corrections, the substance of those statutes are not involved in the debate?

Mr. Labelle: No.

The Deputy Chairman: It is only to correct, not to enact.

Mr. Ed Schmidt, Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice: The criteria do not expressly forbid an amendment that has some substance to it; but if it has a substantive element, it should be something that appears to be non-controversial, something that would be acceptable to all parties.

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, but you are before a legislative house. We are accustomed to making corrections once or twice a year. Can we say that there are no new principles embodied in this bill?

Mr. Schmidt: I would agree with that. To say that there is no substantive content might be stretching it a bit far occasionally. It is sometimes difficult to make a correction that does not have substantive content.

The Deputy Chairman: To the extent that it is a correction, yes, of course, we agree.

Mr. Labelle: They must meet the full criteria that I just mentioned.

The Deputy Chairman: Next we will hear from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

[Translation]

Mr. Denys Vermette, Vice-President, Corporate Services, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission: I want to thank you for this opportunity to address your questions and potential concerns.

I am appearing before you this afternoon as the official representative of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I am accompanied by John Waddington, Director General of the Environmental and Human Performance Assessment Directorate and by Bernie Shaffer, Legal Counsel.

[English]

Let me assure you that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, carefully screened its proposals against the criteria applicable for legislative amendments proposed through the miscellaneous statute law amendment program. We paid particular attention to the requirement that our proposals not be controversial and excluded from our proposal any changes that could in our view be controversial. We sought and obtained legal advice and, where applicable, we have sought and obtained the support of the Treasury Board secretariat and of the office of the Auditor General.

I am prepared to briefly address each of the proposals that may be of specific interest to this committee.

First, with respect to 16(1) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, our proposal to modify this subsection would remove the requirement for Treasury Board to approve the terms and conditions of employment covering Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission employees. It would also replace Treasury Board approval with a requirement to consult Treasury Board when fixing remuneration of CNSC staff.

Honourable senators, on the face of its wording, our proposal to amend subsection 16(1) may appear to expand the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's powers in relation to personnel management. Let me assure you that this is not the case. In fact, by suggesting a modification to subsection 16(1), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is only attempting to maintain the same personnel management powers it has duly and responsibly exercised since at least 1968.

Until the coming into force of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act in May 2000, the then Atomic Energy Control Board, our predecessor organization that had been a separate employer since 1946, derived its personnel management powers from section 8 of the Atomic Energy Control Act and from Order in Council P.C. 1968-26/230. The combination of these two authorities gave the Atomic Energy Control Board, now the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the power to fix terms and conditions of employ ment, including remuneration, without the approval of the Treasury Board.

The drafters of subsection 16(1) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, as it presently reads, assumed in 1995 that a new Order in Council could be drafted that, if read in combination with subsection 16(1), would serve to continue the powers as they then existed. Subsequent legal opinions have cast doubt on the soundness of this approach. Therefore, as a best available temporary measure, a new Order in Council P.C. 2000-1135 was drafted by Treasury Board staff on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's behalf and approved by the Governor in Council. We are now seeking an amendment to subsection 16(1) to put these powers on firm legal footing and to inscribe in law the requirement to consult with the Treasury Board when fixing remuneration to reflect our longstanding practice in this regard.

I have made available for you, on the left-hand side of your docket, a copy of the former section 8 of the Atomic Energy Control Act and of the Order in Council 1968-26/230, which, as I said, when read in combination empowered the Atomic Energy Control Board to fix its remuneration and terms and conditions without the approval of Treasury Board.

With respect to subsection 17(1) of the Nuclear Safety Control Act, our proposal would remove the requirement for Treasury Board approval of rates paid to contractors as fixed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a departmental corporation under the Financial Administration Act. As such, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission activities in the areas of service contracts are already governed by the Treasury Board contracting policy and the government contracts regulations. This policy and regulations already stipulate that the rates must be approved by Treasury Board in specified circumstances.

Furthermore, subsection 17(1) - which we are currently attempting to modify - as it currently reads, conflicts with the Treasury Board contracting policy with respect to small-value contracts where no Treasury Board approval is required. I refer in that regard to appendix C of that policy. The proposed amendment to subsection 17(1) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act would remove this conflict. The contracting policy and government contracts regulations will continue to apply to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and Treasury Board approvals for service contracts will be required in accordance with that policy.

With respect to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act paragraphs 21(1)( j) and 37(2)(h), I will turn to Mr. John Waddington to make that presentation, after which I will come back to make a very short presentation on section 68.

Mr. John Waddington, Director General, Environmental and Human Performance Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission: Honourable senators, I should like to address proposals for amendments to paragraphs 21(1)(j) and 37(2)(h). These proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the Nuclear Safety and Control Act reflects correctly the health and safety regime needed to control the return to work of workers who have or may have received a dose of radiation in excess of the limits. This regime was first reflected in legislation in the regulations that were passed under the old Atomic Energy Control Act in 1974.

What is the regime that we have followed? Briefly, if a mishap occurs in the workplace that results in or may result in an excessive dose of radiation to a worker, the employer is required to remove the affected worker from the workplace. Before that worker can return, the actual dose the worker received must be determined, which is rarely a simple matter. Remedial action must be in place to the satisfaction of the commission in carrying out its regulatory duties.

The regime has not been prejudicial to the rights of either employees or employers and, in fact, has been perceived as beneficial to both in terms of health, safety and, in particular, predictability.

I should also add at this time that we are as interested in doses that are close to the limit as those that are over the limit, as both are likely to indicate a breakdown in the employee's protection program that the regulations call for.

Under the new legislation, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, new regulations, notably sections 16 and 17 of the radiation protection regulations, have been passed that continue to provide the legislative support for the regime and, in fact, apply in cases where the dose may have exceeded the applicable dose limit. Before they were promulgated, the new regulations were subjected to widespread public consultation by licensees, unions and the public. We received no comments at all on the wording of the new regulations.

We are confident, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the proposed amendment is not controversial and, in fact, strengthens the protection afforded to workers in the nuclear industry.

Ms Vermette: With regard to the Nuclear Safety Control Act, subsection 68(1), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission proposes to add subsection 68.1 to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, thereby ensuring that its accounts and financial transactions would be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission does not consider the addition of this provision to be controversial, since the Auditor General has been performing this function for the former Atomic Energy Control Board under section 6(17) of the former Atomic Energy Control Act. Furthermore, her Excellency the Governor General in Council has requested the continuance of this practice by virtue of Order in Council 2000-1117, dated July 27, 2000. I have a copy of this Order in Council available for your information, again on the left-hand side of your docket.

This concludes my presentation.

The Deputy Chairman: If I understand correctly, no one else is ready to make a presentation.

Mr. Schmidt: That is correct. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee might have, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Senator Joyal: Regarding the proposal to amend subsection 16(1), have there been instances in the past where, for comparable positions, the CNSC's recommendation was not in line with the remuneration scale applied by Treasury Board?

Mr. Vermette: The CNSC's remuneration structure is different from the one in place in the public service. We do not have the same occupational categories and we have our own remuneration, position evaluation and classification systems.

In the past, pursuant to section 8E of the Atomic Energy Control Act and Order in Council 1968-26230, the Commission had responsibility for fixing and approving remuneration.

Of course, it has always been customary for us to consult with Treasury Board. We are a responsible agency. We want to ensure that any decisions we make regarding remuneration do not have an adverse affect on those employees under Treasury Board authority.

As a separate employer, we continue to make our own decisions and, as has been the case for decades, we consult with Treasury Board to avoid any potential problems.

Senator Joyal: You have explained the process. However, you have not answered my question. Your first priority is to fix the occupational level and classification based on your own requirements. Have there been cases in the past where, after consulting, Treasury Board and the Commission have differed on the issue of remuneration?

Mr. Vermette: To my knowledge, no. Occasionally, discussions on the reasons for our proposals have gone on several weeks, with the respective parties seeking to understand each other's position.

Ultimately, the Commission's decisions are in line with the will expressed by Treasury Board.

Senator Joyal: And the parties always come to an understand ing on the matter of remuneration.

Mr. Vermette: That is correct.

Senator Joyal: Practically speaking then, if you do always manage to come to an agreement with Treasury Board, I do not see why, if there is not a problem, your remuneration scale could not simply be approved by Treasury Board, since you consult with it any event.

Mr. Vermette: It has to do with our being a separate employer. It would be difficult to imagine a public service consisting on the one hand of a central public service, and on the other hand, of a number of separate employers with no authority to make decisions regarding their own management. When a number of new separate employers were created recently, including Parks Canada and the CCRA, the enabling legislation made provision for these agencies to have these management powers. This is a reflection of the will of the government and of Treasury Board to give separate employers the authority to manage their own human resources.

Senator Joyal: That is a good example. However, the CNSC is not providing a comparable service, in so far as public access is concerned.

Parks Canada and the CCRA are new agencies that provide services to the public at large and they can operate fully as separate employers.

You cannot equate your agency's status with that of the other separate employers you identified.

Mr. Vermette: One must take into account the fact that our agency has enjoyed the status of separate employer since 1946. Although I was not around at the time, there were undoubtedly sound reasons for granting it this status, for the status quo to have been maintained until now and for its autonomy never to have been called into question. The CNSC has always performed well on the human resources front. It plays an important role for Canadians, as does Parks Canada. Both agencies are in touch regularly with members of the public. The CNSC fulfils an important role in our society and is happy with the status that has been conferred upon it.

Senator Joyal: Has Treasury Board recommended that your authority to fix remuneration be modified in this manner?

Mr. Vermette: Yes, it has.

The Deputy Chairman: I am troubled by the words "non-controversial".

[English]

Who is the judge?

[Translation]

Mr. Schmidt: Basically, that is you.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Do you mean the Senate?

Mr. Schmidt: The process that we follow in Justice is to try to identify the ones that we anticipate will not be controversial. We do not decide that. It is the parliamentary committees that make those decisions. We simply make our best judgment as to what we think will not be controversial. We then present them to you and at these committees you get to decide.

The Deputy Chairman: What happens if the bill is adopted as it is?

Mr. Schmidt: If any proposition is rejected by a committee, then it is dropped from the bill. It does not appear in the bill.

Senator Pearson: We do not have the bill yet.

Senator Cools: This is not a bill, Mr. Chairman. The committee members seem to be under an illusion. We do not have a bill before us. What we have before us is a set of proposals for a bill. The unfortunate thing, or the fortunate thing, I do not know, is that it seems to imitate the form of a bill. Thus, at first glance, it looks like a bill.

The Deputy Chairman: It is like an income tax bill, it is so complex.

It certainly makes proposals that will become the law.

Senator Cools: But the bill will have to come before us to be voted on.

The Deputy Chairman: That is right. Our first order of business is to rule on the proposals; the second is the bill itself, if it comes.

Senator Andreychuk: I would like to start with something that troubles me most. I refer to the provision that directs the commission to authorize a person to return to work if that person may have received an excessive dose of radiation, as well as a person who has received such a dose. The authority to require such a person to leave work is found in regulation 16.

Does the commission, then, have the sole discretion about the person returning to work? That is what you are asking for here; is that correct?

Mr. Waddington: Yes. The commission would have a specific power to allow someone to return to work. As I alluded to in my opening remarks, the intent of that power concerns an overexposure - or where an overexposure may have occurred, because it does take time for that precise evaluation to take place. That is evidence that the protection programs that the licensee, the employer, has in place have failed in some fashion or another. The program to ensure the safety of nuclear weapons in the nuclear industry is, in essence, a two-tier approach. There is a formal legal limit, which is in the regulations, and there is also a requirement for all employers to maintain doses as low as reasonably achievable. That is a principle that we have followed for many years. Thus, workers in Canadian industries get significantly less than the dose limits.

To give you some figures, the dose limit per year is 50 millisieverts. No one in Canada who is working in the nuclear industry must get more than that. Typically, in Canadian industry, most workers get between 1 and 10, and most of them are at the lower end of that scale. That is the ALARA process.

Clearly then, if someone has received a dose in the 50 millisievert range or more, then the whole of ALARA program has failed in some fashion or another. As part of our regulatory process, we look to ensure why that has occurred. We may check to see that the licensee has taken appropriate action to correct the failings in that program. We have a program to ensure that the affected employee has a clear understanding of the implications of the overdose, that he knows the meaning of the dosage received in terms of the increased chance of cancer at, say, age 70. The employee can decide personally whether to return to work. We also ask whether any retraining is necessary for the employee or whether changes are needed in the procedures.

We go through a regulatory process whenever an overexposure has occurred. From a regulatory point of view, we want to be satisfied that due possess has been followed before someone is allowed back to work. I hope that answers your question.

Senator Andreychuk: What I am trying to get at is this: I have notes that suggest that, if we allow this to go through, the commission will have an expanded discretion to authorize a person to return to work. Who holds the discretion now? How would we diminish the individual's right to determine his or her own capability to return? Would this change put the decision into the hands of the employer exclusively?

Mr. Waddington: The decision would not be put in the hands of the employer exclusively. We want to ensure that the specific process is followed. The employee has the right to decide for himself or herself once we are satisfied that all the processes of correction have been undertaken.

In terms of an expansion of rights, this process has been followed for many years. This is not a change to the processes that we follow. Regulations 16(1) and 17(1) were enacted to cover the situation of "may have." When we wrote the act, we made an error; it should have said "has or may have," so that the act, the regulations and the regulatory regime all match up appropriately. This is not an expansion of the processes that we have followed in the past, nor is it a retraction. The intent here is to maintain the status quo; for that reason, we believe it is a non-controversial issue.

Senator Andreychuk: If this change will not affect the process, I would ask why you need this regulation.

Mr. Waddington: The current regulation includes an uncertainty in the dose. What we are asking is to modify the act, which contains a mistake. The act refers to where an overdose has actually occurred; it does not refer to where an individual "may have" received an overdose. Under those circumstances, there is a hole in the legislation, if you will.

Let us go through the process. If there is a suspicion that an overdose has occurred, the regulations require the licensee to go through certain processes, including a study of what occurred, and so on. Under the current legislative process, the act leaves out a situation where an overdose "may have" occurred. There is, then, theoretically, a hole in the process, because, if we can assure ourselves that the dose has been properly assessed at just below the dose limit, we cannot use the legislative processes to exercise the due processes that we have followed for many years to address an incident.

Senator Andreychuk: Let me summarize. If it can be proven according to your current processes that someone has received an overdose, there is a certain process you follow. You are trying to lower the bar to ensure that people who "may" have received an overdose are entitled to the same process. Is that it?

Mr. Waddington: Right now we use the process, whether the overdose has been proven or not. We cover people who have actually received an overdose and those who may have received an overdose. We want to maintain that standard because we believe that it offers the best protection for workers in all circumstances. It tells employers, too, that they have a good due process to follow, and that provides certainty to everyone that all appropriate processes are being followed before work is resumed.

Senator Andreychuk: For how long have you used these processes?

Mr. Waddington: The original regulations under the old Atomic Energy Control Act were passed in 1974, so we have had these processes for many years now.

Senator Andreychuk: You have had the processes with that gap?

Mr. Waddington: No. The old act was not written as clearly as the new one, nor were the old regulations written as clearly. The whole of the old act is much more general and so we relied more on the processes involved. The old regulation explicitly gave power to the commission to authorize a return to work. That was in the old regulations under section 16, I think.

Senator Joyal: On the same issue, I am puzzled by the wording. It dictates that the person may be asked not to continue in his or her work until all the circumstances can be properly assessed. "Dictate" is an order. I tried to figure out a situation whereby an employee would want to stay at his or her work when he or she has been exposed to dangerous circumstances requiring the employer to dictate to the person to leave, to get out.

A hypothesis is always a potentiality. Perhaps I am being redundant in using those terms. Could there be a situation where an employee denies being exposed and wants to continue working but where you dictate that he or she must leave work? Is there a safeguard of the rights of the employee? Is there a possibility that an employee's rights could be abused in this situation?

Mr. Waddington: The process for someone leaving work is a requirement on the employer. Section 16 of the regulations states that when a licensee becomes aware that a dose of radiation received by or committed to a person may have exceeded an applicable dose limit - I am leaving out some of the bits, if I may - then the licensee shall do the immediately do the following: notify the person and the commission; require the person to leave any work that is likely to add to the dose; conduct an investigation to determine the magnitude of the dose and establish the cause of the exposure; identify and take any action required to prevent the occurrence of a similar incident. Within 21 days after becoming aware that the dose limit has been exceeded, the employer must report to the commission. That is the process they have to follow as laid out in the regulations. It is an onus placed on the employer.

The rights of the worker are safeguarded in section 48 of the regulations. In essence, that regulation safeguards the employment of that person while they have been taken off work. That section describes as an offence, except firing under prescribed processes, the firing of someone under those circumstances. The rights of the employee are dealt with in a different section of the regulations explicitly.

The Deputy Chairman: All laws are governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This committee of the Senate looks after legislation on two grounds. The first is whether it is within the competence of the Parliament of Canada. The second is whether it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is our duty. My concern involves ordering a person to do something, which, in and of itself, involves the rights of that person. As a result, we have to ensure that that is acceptable in a free and democratic society. As I understand it, that is the question of Senator Joyal.

Ms Vermette: Mr. Chairman, given the legal nature of your question, I would like to call upon our legal counsel, Mr. Shaffer, to provide any clarification that may be useful to you.

Mr. Bernie Shaffer, Senior Counsel, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission: As Mr. Waddington was saying, the question of the rights of the employee is covered in a different section of the act. Section 48(h) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act provides that, except in the prescribed manner and circumstances, to terminate or vary the terms and conditions of employment of a nuclear energy worker who has received or is committed to a dose of radiation in excess of the prescribed limits is not permitted. That was one of the safeguards to which Mr. Waddington was referring. That has been looked at from the point of view, among other criteria, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Department of Justice.

In addition, sections 16(1) and 17(1) of the radiation protection regulations establish the scheme whereby a licensee who becomes aware that an employee may have been exposed to a dose of radiation in excess of the prescribed limits is obligated to remove that worker. That is an incursion into the rights of that worker; there is no question about that. However, that incursion has been judged to be consistent with what is appropriate in a free and democratic society. It is for the protection of the worker.

The Deputy Chairman: When you say "remove," what do you mean?

Mr. Shaffer: It is not to remove someone from the job because, obviously, section 48(h) says you cannot do that. You remove that worker from the particular type of work that may expose him or her, as it says in 16(1), to more doses of radiation. Thus, it is a temporary removal. As Mr. Waddington said, the due process is to determine what happened, why it happened and what remedial action is to be taken by the employer and the worker. Under subsection 17(1) of the regulations, the commission, or a designated officer, may authorize the return to work of that worker. In authorizing that return to work, subsection 17(1) states that the commission, or the authorized person on behalf of the commission, can impose conditions and prorated dose limits. In other words, these are limits that take into account the amount that the individual has already received.

Senator Joyal: The first section you read states, in part, "who has received." That means that there is a factual element in play. However, we are not dealing with that. Thus, there is still a question mark about that. We are looking at a case in which a person has effectively received a dose. The question we have concerns the employee who may have received an excessive dose. It is not to dictate that a person who has received an excessive dose be asked not to continue in his or her employment. The fact that there is an uncertainty raises a question. It does not deal with when a person has received a dose. When a person has received a dose, the procedure is quite clear. I understand that you follow it. However, there is a due process to be followed. The uncertainty has to do with the reception of the dose.

Mr. Shaffer: You are absolutely correct. Section 48(h) talks about a nuclear energy worker who has received or is committed to a dose of radiation. As a matter of statutory interpretation, if it is true that this provision protects a worker who actually has received a dose in excess of the prescribed limit, then it can be argued how much more would it protect a worker who may have received such a dose. That is the uncertainty factor. In this case, if I had to make an argument in front of a court, I would say the greater includes the lesser. The protection given to the person who has definitely been proven to be overexposed would, as we like to say, a fortiori, apply to the person who is in the grey zone and may have received such a dose.

Senator Joyal: In your practice, would an employee contest that he or she has been exposed to a dose?

Mr. Shaffer: No, not in my practice. I have been with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as a lawyer from the Department of Justice for four and a half years, so these gentlemen are my colleagues. In that time, I have never yet confronted in my practice a situation where an employee has contested. I must defer to Mr. Waddington.

Mr. Waddington: No, generally speaking, for many years we have not found that to be an issue. An employee who has received an overexposure or is concerned or suspects that he or she may have received an overexposure is anxious to find out exactly what has happened. The employee is anxious to know what it means personally, what it means in terms of continued employment and whether any employment conditions should be put in place to safeguard his or her health and to provide an appropriate balance between getting the work done and safeguarding employee rights.

That is indeed what I was referring to in my opening remarks when I mentioned that over the years this whole regime has proved beneficial to both employers and employees in terms of the predictability and precision of the process. All the issues get looked at. The employee understands precisely what has happened to him, the effect on his or her health, and then, with facts in hand, makes a decision about his or her future.

Senator Andreychuk: I am worried about the other part. If the person is suspected to have a dose, the individual is worried, the employer is worried, and then the employer removes the employee and is obliged to go through a process to make a determination. What I do not understand is that if the process is in place for the person you suspect has been exposed, where does the differentiation between "has" and "may have" come in for the purposes of returning to work? It seems to me you are saying "suspect," "may" and "have" are the same thing for the purposes of the analysis and the obligation to remove them. Where does the separation come in on the return to work?

Mr. Waddington: The best way that I can answer your question is to paint a picture, if I may, of a typical situation. Let us say some problem occurs in the workplace, resulting in a concern that someone may have been overexposed. The individual wears a badge, which can be measured as to the dose. It is possible that the badge, which the employee wears on his or her clothes, may not record precisely the dose or the part of their body that received the greatest dose. An example may illustrate the point. A young radiographer recently incorrectly operated a radiography machine. It was not clear from the position of her badge, which was on her lapel, what the dose was that she received to her head, which was too close to the beam. Clearly, under those circumstances, a dose reconstruction has to be done. An immediate estimate can be made, but it will be a rough estimate. There are a number of processes to go through to confirm that dose, and that may involve a number of processes at Health Canada, to ensure that the dose is precisely understood.

Once that is done and a clear dose has been identified, the appropriate decisions can be made on how best to protect that person's health. Does that help?

Senator Andreychuk: No. I still do not understand. If there is a suspicion or a certainty, you go through a process. You say you have the authority to remove an employee. In the two scenarios, it is not a question of your having the authority to remove the employee. You are saying the process for analysis is the same in the two scenarios.

Mr. Waddington: Yes, it is.

Senator Andreychuk: Where is the divergence? If everything is the same, then why have you not had before the authority to return them to work in both situations? Where did this discrepancy that now separates the may haves from the has come about when the identification and the process is identical?

Mr. Waddington: Simply because we missed out the "may have" in the act, which, indeed, is the intent of the amendment to correct. Without the amendment, the power is less clear for us to follow the appropriate regime.

Senator Andreychuk: Have there been any cases? How did this come to light? Was it a case of an employee refusing to go back to work and questioning your authority to send him or her back to work that led you to say there is a discrepancy?

Mr. Waddington: No.

Mr. Shaffer: That is a potential problem. You have an act that authorizes some regulations. The regulations say that, where a person "may have been overexposed," it is the duty of the employer to get that person out of the workplace.

The Deputy Chairman: Right away.

Mr. Shaffer: Right away. How will the employee get back in? The next section of the regulation says the employee can get back in if the commission or a person authorized by the commission lets him or her back in. The person is let back in following the due process that Mr. Waddington has been talking about. If we do not have this clarified, there may be a gap in the legislative scheme. This poor soul who may have been overexposed is in limbo. We want someone to be able to authorize this individual to go back to the workplace with the right conditions to guarantee his or her safety.

The Deputy Chairman: I hope the employee has the right to a lawyer.

Mr. Shaffer: I am sure he does.

The Deputy Chairman: But your proposal is to render the processes more clear, is it not?

Mr. Shaffer: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it really clearer?

Senator Pearson: It is to me.

Senator Poy: It is to me, too.

The Deputy Chairman: I would like to hear Senator Pearson on that.

Senator Pearson: It may be that as you are trying to determine the exact dose the person may not want to go back to work at all; on the other hand, the individual might want to go back immediately. You are saying that, at the moment, because of the discrepancy, no one has the authority to say, "Go back" or "Do not go back."

Mr. Shaffer: I am saying we have an anomaly, an inconsistency and a possible error in our act. We would like it fixed.

Senator Pearson: Yes. Your regulations are doing that but the act is not.

Mr. Shaffer: The act is not on track.

Senator Pearson: That seems clear to me.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the same thing for you, Senator Poy?

Senator Poy: Yes. Is the reason for the change the fact that this has happened many times before?

Mr. Waddington: We have not had a situation where this has been a problem in the past. Under the old act, even though the acts were not written as clearly as they are today - the process under both circumstances has worked very well. We want to maintain that process and ensure that the legislative framework under which we do maintain that process is clear and internally consistent.

Senator Poy: I am satisfied with that.

[Translation]

Senator Joyal: I have a question concerning Treasury Board. It approves salary levels as well as the rates paid to contractors.

I imagine Treasury Board has okayed the changes that you are requesting in the area of contract adjudication. Am I right?

Mr. Vermette: You are.

Senator Joyal: Do you have that letter with you?

Mr. Vermette: No. In any event, the proposed amendments were drafted in concert with counsel for the Justice Department and Treasury Board is one of their clients.

We would not have come this far if Treasury Board had asked us to stop. That would make no sense.

The Deputy Chairman: Who has the last word from a legislative standpoint? You or the Justice Department?

[English]

Mr. Schmidt: Ultimately, the drafters - my colleague and myself - decide what goes into the document, but there is a process of consultation. The draft is circulated. Representatives of every ministry, including the Treasury Board, are informed of all of the proposals and are invited to provide their comments.

The Deputy Chairman: At the end of the day, the Department of Justice must issue some kind of certificate that the proposed legislation is in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? We have heard that very often.

Mr. Schmidt: Yes. That is not the issue in this particular case.

The Deputy Chairman: You are satisfied?

Mr. Schmidt: I am, yes.

Senator Joyal: I understand that the Department of Justice lawyers drafted the amendments that we are considering today?

Mr. Schmidt: That is correct.

Senator Joyal: In that capacity, your client was Treasury Board?

Mr. Schmidt: If you want to speak of those terms, our client here was the Nuclear Safety Commission, but every one of these proposals has been circulated.

Senator Joyal: You received no negative answers?

Mr. Schmidt: That is correct. We did not.

Senator Joyal: In what form did you receive an approval by the concerned department? Do they write a letter? Are they required to express their view within a limited period of time? Do you presume that everyone agrees if you hear nothing? How does that work?

Mr. Schmidt: A specific meeting is called at which all concerns need to be raised. If people do not appear and do not raise any concerns, then they do not have concerns.

Senator Joyal: Silence is approval or absence is approval?

Mr. Schmidt: In certain circumstances, after full information, yes.

Senator Andreychuk: To the lawyers from the Department of Justice, with the National Film Act and the nuclear safety issue, all of these agencies will have the ability to set their own salaries, removing the need for a Governor in Council authority. How can that be a minor amendment in an inconsequential, miscellaneous statute when we are dealing with the public purse and transferring the payment of public funds away from scrutiny and toward discretion? I understand that the act will make this constitutionally legal, but how do you perceive the movement of public funds to be a minor matter for this bill? Is that not a substantive issue that should be highlighted in legislation?

Mr. Schmidt: I remind honourable senators that this involves no appropriation of funds or anything like that. It is simply a question, internal to government, as to how salaries are set. In other words, Parliament has already given its approval for any money that will be spent one way or the other. Someone in an internal government process decides exactly the limits, the actions, the expenses for employment or for contracts.

In our view, additional spending of public funds is not being authorized here. This is only a procedural matter internal to government. If it were acceptable to all those branches of government involved, then it probably would not be objectionable to Parliament. That was essentially our reasoning behind these proposals.

Senator Andreychuk: With the National Film Act, we are talking about upper-echelon salaries when we are talking about those bound by either union contracts or otherwise. The executives of that agency would determine salary levels and so discrepancies between agencies and departments could be rather substantial, providing the agency stayed within the pocket of money that has been allocated.

Senator Pearson: My understanding is that this does not cover the appointment.

Senator Andreychuk: I took it to be the appointment and the salary.

The Deputy Chairman: What is your answer to that?

Mr. Schmidt: If the question is directed specifically to the National Film Act, we do have a witness here from the National Film Board of Canada. It may be appropriate to hear from him.

Senator Joyal: We should first finish with the witnesses from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Senator Andreychuk: We can then use the nuclear safety and control example. The terms and conditions of employment for the commission's staff are removed. I presume "terms and conditions" includes salary level.

Mr. Vermette: May I bring a clarification? As I highlighted in my presentation, the amendment being sought through this process does not change the levels of power that have been exercised by the Atomic Energy Control Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission at least back to 1968 and probably back to 1946, although I will not vouch for 1946 to 1968.

Under the Atomic Energy Control Act, section 89.8(c) in combination with Order in Council 1968-26/230 - both docu ments are in your docket - gave authority to the commission in 1968 to establish its terms and conditions and to set its remuneration without the approval of the Treasury Board.

We are not seeking different powers here. These powers have been exercised for a long time.

Senator Andreychuk: If that is the case and the same provisions were not included in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, I want to know from someone whether that omission was intentional. We are being told it is an omission. Did the legislators of the day who passed the Nuclear Safety Act intend to have the same process for salaries?

Mr. Vermette: I can give you that assurance. I refer you back to the top of page 4 of my presentation. When the drafting of the Nuclear Safety Control Act was undertaken in approximately 1994 - certainly it was in full activity in 1995 - the act was drafted on the assumption that a new Order in Council would be drafted because the 1968 one referred to "the Atomic Energy Control Act." The new order would otherwise replicate the 1968 order and so the act in combination with the new Order in Council would simply continue the status quo. That was in 1995. The act did not come into force until May 2000.

In 1999, legal opinions came forward that the combination of an act and an Order in Council were not on sound legal footing. It was only at that time that we realized that, if that was not a solid footing, in order to continue doing what we have always done, and it was intended by the Treasury Board and by us that the former regime did continue, then we needed to put it on solid legal footing. The only way that we could do that was to amend section 16(1).

[Translation]

Senator Joyal: What is the value of the contracts that you will now have discretionary authority to award?

Mr. Vermette: I do not have the figures with me, but I can assure you that the CNSC will be governed by the same rates and rules as those applying to the public service as a whole. Even if we withdrew our proposed amendment to section 17 which calls for Treasury Board approval, the regulations governing public service contracts and the Treasury Board Contracting Policy would still apply to us. And while I do not have the figures in front of me, I can say that the CNSC will be subject to the same regime as all other public service agencies, by virtue of the fact that we are a departmental corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. Given this fact, even if we were to strike the words "Treasury Board approval" from section 17, we would still be governed by the Government Contract Regulations and by the Treasury Board Contracting Policy.

The Deputy Chairman: Are you ready to answer questions about the National Film Board?

Mr. Gauthier: As to whether withdrawing this provision would in fact create a new pay scale, that would not be the case. The approval of the Governor in Council would still be required for people appointed to positions with a salary of $99,000 and over before the appointment can be confirmed. The elimination of this provision in no way modifies the pay scales. Clause 13(4) merely does away with the requirement that the Governor in Council approve the appointment.

Mr. Labelle: Heritage Canada is withdrawing clauses 72 and 73 of the act along with the schedule to clause 73.

The Deputy Chairman: There are no questions regarding this provision.

Mr. Labelle: The proposed amendments to the National Capital Act have been withdrawn.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: We did not hear, I understand, from Canadian Heritage or from the National Capital Commission. Will there be no presentation, no information?

[Translation]

Mr. Glen Mostowich, Senior Portfolio Analyst, Portfolio Affairs Office, Heritage Canada: We are here to answer any questions you may have, but we do not have a presentation to make at this time.

Senator Joyal: Mr. Gauthier, for the record, exactly what job do you hold with the National Film Board?

Mr. Guy Gauthier, Director, Human Resources, National Film Board of Canada: I am the Director of Human Resources.

Senator Joyal: When the Governor in Council approves an appointment, the information is subsequently made public. If we do away with this requirement, this would mean that salary decisions in this range would not be made public. That is the first thing that would happen if approval was no longer required. Is that correct?

Mr. Gauthier: This provision first appeared in the National Film Act. The threshold in 1939 was set at $5,000 for war films. The aim was not only to impart some information, but also to identify those National Film Board officials earning $5,000 and over.

With today's modern and efficient public service, this provision may appear somewhat outdated. Persons hired at these salaries cannot at this time be confirmed in their position for two or three months. The process at the NFB is lengthy. I have worked for the NFB for 30 years and this provision has never given rise to any questions. In years past, it was a means of getting information and exercising some measure of control. That may still be the case, but there are countless other ways of finding out the names of senior NFB officials.

Senator Joyal: Does the Governor in Council set the salary scale at the NFB?

Mr. Gauthier: That scale is set by the NFB itself, but in consultation with Treasury Board, pursuant to subsection 13(1) of our act.

Senator Joyal: The approval of the Governor in Council in no way affects the salary scale. It merely serves to give legitimacy to the decision to hire someone at that salary level. Correct?

Mr. Gauthier: That is our understanding of this provision.

Senator Joyal: Therefore, the Governor in Council does not have the authority to revise the salary that would be paid to a staff member? He can only approve or reject the appointment.

Mr. Gauthier: To my understanding, yes.

Senator Joyal: I see that Mr. Schmidt is looking somewhat quizzical? Was mine a reasonable question?

Mr. Schmidt: The provision merely states that an appointment is not effective until such time as approval is given by the Governor in Council.

[English]

The nomination does not take effect until it is approved. The validity of the appointment is specifically in question in this provision. From a practical point of view, the ability to withhold approval from an appointment might indirectly have an effect on other things. We must be realistic and practical about this. However, the technical and precise thing is only the validity of the appointment exactly as indicated - either approval or refusal of a particular appointment.

Senator Joyal: This deals more with the identification of the candidate than with the amount of money paid to that person?

Mr. Schmidt: I am not sure it is possible to respond to that. The provision being repealed simply says that if the salary for a position exceeds the amount that the Governor in Council has prescribed or determined then the appointment is not valid until it is approved. That is the essential rule and that is the rule that is being removed. The effect is to presumably permit the National Film Board to engage someone at a salary that is now higher than whatever the amount was without that approval.

Senator Joyal: How many people in the National Film Board's employ were paid more $99,000?

[Translation]

Mr. Gauthier: At present, we have 15 staff members earning over $99,000. In the past five years, two requests for approval have been submitted, further to the appointment of two persons to positions with salaries of $99,000 and over.

Senator Joyal: What kind of positions are we talking about?

Mr. Gauthier: Positions at the executive level where incumbents report directly to the Commissioner of the National Film Board of Canada.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: I will ask a similar question about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act. Sections 62 and 13 are "potentially" controversial. What do you mean by that, in practice?

Ms Suzanne Pelham Belliveau, Legal Counsel, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: With respect to section 6(2) of the ACOA act, we do not believe that this is a substantial and potentially controversial change. The intention of this amendment is to reduce the administrative burden on the Privy Council Office. We have discussed this proposal with PCO, who is in agreement with it on the condition that a policy be put in place at the agency to ensure consultation and liaison with the office concerning federal and provincial matters. A similar arrangement is currently in place with Eastern Canada.

Senator Buchanan: Now you are discussing something that I have great interest in, not that I do not have a great interest in the other things. I have a great interest in everything that goes on in this committee, but specifically in ACOA. I was around when ACOA was started and I think it is a great agency. I have criticized it from time to time over the years, but, on balance, most of the time I have great praise for it.

I have one question to ask the witness. Are you a New Brunswick Belliveau or a western shore or French shore Belliveau from Nova Scotia?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: The Belliveau part is my husband's name. His family is from New Brunswick. I in fact grew up in Cape Breton.

Senator Buchanan: I was next going to ask you about Pelham, because the Pelhams are Cape Breton people from Herring Cove.

Ms Pelham Belliveau: That is correct.

Senator Buchanan: This is a very important witness and a very good one, too. I have no problem with any of these proposals because I do not think it is important that the Governor in Council be involved. The ministers and the provincial governments should be able to make these decisions and do these agreements.

Why are they changing the frequency of board meetings from once every three months to once every year? Would it not be better to meet twice a year?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: Currently, the board meets three or four times per year; however, on occasion, there is no business and no reason for the minister to seek advice. It was thought that reducing the meeting to once per year as a minimum would allow for flexibility.

Senator Buchanan: Do you think it is a good proposal?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: Yes.

Senator Buchanan: Since you are a Cape Bretoner, I agree with you.

Senator Andreychuk: I understand that the same answers apply to the Governor in Council, as we heard previously. You said that the Governor in Council put in a stipulation that a policy must be put in place before they would agree to this. How can we ensure that the policy is in place? Can you explain that?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: The agency has made a commitment to put such a policy in place. Privy Council officials pointed to the Industry Canada policy. Currently, a similar arrangement exists with Industry Canada and the Privy Council Office. They have pointed to the Industry Canada policy as a potential precedent. I suggest the agency has made that commitment and they will honour it.

Senator Andreychuk: Just following up my constant concern about public spending, would you answer in the same way that there are no new monies that can be expended within the mandate under the regulation 13 process? In other words, a delegation is made from ACOA down to another agency. That agency does not have the same objectives. I understand they have a different, broader mandate. Does that raise any questions about the use of public funds in a way that may not have been originally intended, if this delegation is allowed?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: No. The mandate and objectives of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation are similar to ACOA's. ECBC has broader powers but the same economic development objectives. ECBC is a Crown corporation, and pursuant to section 26 of their act ECDC and ACOA share the same minister. The president of the ACOA is also the president or the chairman of the board of ECBC. That is another link.

With respect to appropriations, the answer is no. The intention of the act is to provide certainty that the minister has the authority to have ECBC deliver the programs of ACOA on Cape Breton Island. That administrative arrangement ensures that the ACOA appropriation is applied to the ACOA programs.

This arrangement came into being as a result of program review. In an effort to eliminate overlap and duplication, it allows one set of employees to deliver two programs. Thus, there is seamless delivery of economic development programs but there are two different sets of program, ACOA's and ECBC's. There are two different appropriations for those different programs.

Senator Andreychuk: You are saying there are two different appropriations. However, this regulation would allow appropriations from one agency to go to the other by negotiation, I understand, or delegation of power.

Ms Pelham Belliveau: No. This is to clarify the minister's ability to delegate approval of contribution contracts to ECBC employees. The ECBC employees would be approving contracts pursuant to ACOA programs and ACOA appropriations.

Senator Buchanan: It is streamlining the whole program for ACOA and Enterprise Cape Breton. More decisions will be made in Cape Breton than are made now in Halifax or Moncton.

Ms Pelham Belliveau: That is correct.

The Deputy Chairman: We are not talking about anything retroactive, are we?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: No.

Senator Pearson: The work of our researchers has enabled us to raise questions on this matter. Up until now, the answers have been satisfactory. Should references to a parliamentary review ever be deleted from an act? Why have you done this? I am referring to two acts, one that deals with the energy monitoring legislation and the other that deals with railway safety.

Mr. Schmidt: With respect to the Energy Monitoring Act, a bill was introduced in June 1996 to dissolve this agency and to wrap it up. In fact, the provisions contained in the MSLA were contained in that bill. That bill was not proceeded with; and that bill also contained this repeal of section 42 on the reasoning that it was spent.

There was a provision for study with a fixed expiry date. One of the two pieces of legislation you mentioned has a five-year limit. After the five years are over, it seems to be spent. Likewise, there is a provision for a study that was conducted, as far as we knew. All of these things have been done.

I do think the honourable senator raises a very good question because there may well be research reasons to retain a provision even after it is spent. On the other hand, it clutters up the statute book to have provisions that no longer have any legal effect. That was the basic reasoning of our department in this. We said that after a provision no longer has any continuing legal effect it should be removed from the statute book to keep the statute book relatively clean.

Senator Pearson: Are you saying that the Energy Monitoring Act had in it a provision requiring a parliamentary review that never took place?

Mr. Schmidt: As far as we were aware, it had. I know your researchers seem to indicate it has not. I do not know.

Senator Pearson: We cannot find any indication of it. I am just raising the question. We feel very strongly that it is not a committee of the House of Commons that does the reviewing but that it be committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. That is another issue of a more general nature.

In this case, I do not really know what to say. Is it possible to find out about this?

Mr. Schmidt: I suppose.

Senator Pearson: I suppose if the researchers cannot find it out, you may find it difficult, too.

Mr. Schmidt: With respect to the Railway Act, we are advised by legal services of Transport Canada that the review was conducted and resulted in amendments to that act, which are found in the Statutes of Canada 1999, Chapter 9.

With regard to the other one, I am afraid I am in no position to provide any further information as to whether that study was conducted. Our impression and information had been that it was. Your researchers indicate that they have not found any indication it was, so I am not sure.

Senator Joyal: I have an opinion about whether we should remove a provision of a statute commanding that there be a review when the review does not happen and we just erase it - that is reason enough to keep it there.

If there is a provision in a statute for a review to take place and it takes place, then of course in the years following you clean the statute. That is fine. However, when there is a specific provision providing that a review will take place and the review does not take place, or there is no proof it took place, I would not be tempted to remove the provision. The obligation has not been satisfied. Why should we give absolution to something that did not happen when it should have happened? I have a different approach than the one that you proposed to us.

Mr. Schmidt: Frankly, I am not sure it is different. We were under the factual impression that this review had taken place, that in other words the provision was spent.

Senator Joyal: We will have to check the impression to make it a certitude.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you think it is a fact?

Mr. Schmidt: That was our understanding, yes. These proposals come to us.

The Deputy Chairman: It is no longer useful?

Mr. Schmidt: I cannot comment further than to say our impression and our intention was only to remove provisions that we thought had been fulfilled.

Senator Pearson: That makes sense. It would be helpful for us, and for the record, to know from Transport Canada, presumably, the exact details as to when the review took place. The same would apply to Natural Resources Canada. It is important for the public record that we know a review has taken place or, if it has not, why.

Senator Joyal: Ms Pelham Belliveau, I would like to know how many of those agreements have been entered into between the Minister of Industry and one or more of the Atlantic Provinces that were subjected to that requirement of approval by the Governor in Council?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: Agreements, many. I do not have a number for you. They happen every couple of years as part of the programs at ACOA. Each province is to enter into a federal- provincial agreement with ACOA. There are also pan-Atlantic agreements that involve more than one federal department in some cases.

ACOA would take the lead as the coordinator of economic policy in the Atlantic. There are several pan-Atlantic agreements.

The current federal-provincial economic agreements are expiring. Consideration is now being as to whether they will be renewed or whether there are other avenues to deliver the economic development programs.

Senator Joyal: In your opinion, what was the reason for submitting those agreements to the Governor in Council?

Ms Pelham Belliveau: I am not sure, other than to obtain the formal endorsement of the Privy Council Office and that branch of the executive to the agreements. I do know that there is regular consultation and work on an informal basis with Intergovernmental Affairs and Privy Council Office in negotiating these agreements. This change would simply remove the formal requirement to obtain the Order in Council. When these agreements are negotiated as part of the budgetary process, it is necessary to submit a proposal to Treasury Board and to obtain their approval.

Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one thing with respect to the Energy Monitoring Act that escaped my attention before. In having repealed the existence of this body, any provision that provides for review of its functions is moot in any case.

Senator Pearson: That is fine.

Mr. Schmidt: As I advised you, our information is that a study was done and the amendments were incorporated in an act.

Senator Pearson: It would be nice to have that in writing.

The Deputy Chairman: I wish to thank the witnesses very much for their presence here today.

The committee adjourned.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Issue 10 - Evidence, September 19, 2001

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs