---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 20 - Evidence - May 28, 2015

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, May 28, 2015

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

Senator Denise Batters and Ms. Chris Charlton (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): As members will know, along with the usual package of items for consideration today, counsel had prepared for us a memorandum on committee statistics. I think some of us have been looking forward to receiving those. I'm sure you've all had a chance to look at them. Does anyone have any comments or questions, or shall we receive that as an information item?

Hon Members: Agreed.

SOR/97-6 — FEEDS REGULATIONS, 1983, AMENDMENT

SOR/97-9 — SEEDS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/2001-274 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 20A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Let's jump right into the agenda, starting with Item 1 under the heading "Letters To and From Ministers.''

Committee members will recall that we had expressed concerns about regulations dealing with seeds and feeds being released into the environment. It was before us as recently as December of last year. Now the minister's reply advises us that the committee's concerns "will be taken into consideration'' without any firm commitments that they will be part of the prepublication that we're expecting in 2016.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: That's basically correct. It would seem, however, that given the amendments that have been made to the acts and assuming the sorts of amendments that will be necessary as a result of those, I think it's very probable the committee's concerns would have to be addressed in any event.

We don't have a firm confirmation that that's the case, but it seems quite likely that because of what will have to be done as a result of the amendments to the act, that the committee's concerns will be resolved in and of that.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you, counsel. In light of what you've said, I think we should continue to monitor the file and, when this committee reconvenes in the fall, follow it up and take it from there. I'm sure everybody would agree with that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-109 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 20B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Again under "Letters To and From Ministers,'' Item 2 deals with regulations amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations. We have received a response from the minister simply expressing her disagreement with our position.

Counsel, do you want to explain that to us?

Mr. Bernhardt: Certainly. These regulations grant permission for and place conditions on deposit of effluent from mills into waste water systems that are now regulated by the Wastewater System Effluent Regulations. This would include municipal sewer systems. As was indicated, the committee previously concluded there is no authority for these provisions. The Minister of the Environment disagrees.

Back in 2009, the government announced new regulations that would govern the discharges from waste water systems. The committee was subsequently advised that there would be amendments to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations as a result of that, and Environment Canada, in its words, "will be addressing this matter.''

That was apparently confirmed several times subsequently. However, when the new regulations were made in 2012, while those regulations put requirements on discharges out of municipal systems, the provisions governing placement of effluent into those systems were not taken out of the existing regulations.

The committee therefore sought an explanation for that, and in August 2014 the department apologized for any misunderstanding, stating it was committed only to removing requirements for offsite treatment facilities that would lead otherwise to duplication and inconsistencies, but they had not committed to addressing the committee's concern. It is suggested in the note in the materials that apparently the department either misunderstood what the committee was asking it, or simply saw no need to correct the committee's mistaken impression that action was going to be taken.

Back at a meeting on October 9, 2014, the committee decided to draw its concerns to the attention of the minister. The minister's March 3 reply reasserts her view and the department's view that these regulations are, in fact, authorized. Again, as the note explains, the reply basically goes back through the arguments that have been raised and have been dealt with by the committee before. It seems in this case there is a bit of a standoff in the sense of what is going back and forth by now is simply the rehashing of arguments exchanged previously.

The committee has also suggested that these regulations don't achieve much in any event. The way they are drafted provides that if you give notice, that you report, that you monitor, that you have an emergency plan, then you're allowed to deposit anything you like from a pulp and paper mill into a municipal system. So whether you comply with the regulations, i.e. you report and monitor, or you don't comply with the regulations, either way the same material is being deposited.

Even the department refers to these as minor administrative requirements. It's difficult, then, to argue that they're essential to preserving the environment, but that's where matters stand this morning.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any comments on this file?

Senator Runciman: What you're saying in here, counsel, is quite serious. I think it's on page 6, the second last paragraph:

In the absence of some other explanation, it would seem that the Department chose in letters . . . to apply what can only be considered misinformation in response to enquiries . . . .

That is a serious charge, which the committee should be giving some thought to.

Has there ever been a face-to-face meeting? I'm assuming the minister is basing that response on advice she's receiving from counsel within the ministry who have reasons, and based on what you're saying in this, those reasons may be suspect.

This has been with us for nine years now.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Senator Runciman: Did you say you have met with them?

Mr. Bernhardt: There was a meeting with departmental officials. I believe it was the summer of 2013. It wouldn't have dealt exclusively with this file. It was a more general meeting to discuss files with the department. This file may have come up in the course of that, but there was no devoted meeting to this file alone.

Senator Runciman: Has the question of amending the act arisen during any conversations?

Mr. Bernhardt: I don't believe it has to this point.

Senator Runciman: I'm wondering if that's something we should consider. How we deal with these other issues is perhaps another question with respect to whether the department has been dealing in an honest, straightforward and open way with the committee in response to our concerns.

We may want to consider writing the minister with that particular issue highlighted, the committee's concerns on that particular issue. But with respect to the overall problem, I'm wondering if we should also ask in a separate letter if an amendment to the act is more — I wouldn't think so, but that might be the only way to address this.

Mr. Bernhardt: It could be presented as a means of clarifying the situation and removing any uncertainty.

Part of the committee's problem with these regulations is that if depositing effluent from a mill into a municipal system violates the Fisheries Act, then you're left with the logical conclusion that anyone who puts a deleterious substance into a municipal sewer system is also violating the Fisheries Act, which means basically every household in Canada.

The department has taken the view that that's arguably the case, but it's not an issue because, out of the goodness of their hearts, they refrain from charging Canadians for flushing their toilets.

I doubt that's what Parliament intended when they drafted the Fisheries Act, that whether or not householders could be charged depended on the prosecutorial discretion of the department. That's certainly something that could be clarified.

If deposits from industrial establishments are to be considered deposits for the act, that could be expressly stated as well.

Senator Runciman: I would like to suggest for conversation and discussion that one part of this is to have a face-to- face meeting to discuss the issue and also raise the possibility of an amendment to the legislation. That's a more practical, feasible way to proceed.

I think the other element is that the committee should consider writing the minister, expressing our concerns about how this has been dealt with by officials within the ministry.

Mr. Bélanger: Counsel, is it still your opinion, in review, that there is no authority for the provisions?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's my opinion, yes.

Mr. Bélanger: Can you give us a sense of some of the possible consequences?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think the most obvious consequence is that the operator of the mill could be charged for making an illegal deposit to a municipal system, and that deposit would become illegal if you didn't report or monitor your deposit. So in a sense you would be committing two violations: If you monitor and report, your deposit is legal; if you don't monitor and report, then your deposit becomes illegal. You could conceivably be charged with failing to monitor and report as well as with making an illegal deposit. In fact, I know mills have been charged.

Mr. Bélanger: Would these charges then be discarded because there is no authority?

Mr. Bernhardt: I know of one case where they have been contested in the courts, and for various reasons that's been in and out of the courts for almost as long as the committee has been dealing with the file.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any other comments on Senator Runciman's suggested way of proceeding?

Senator Moore: I agree with Senator Runciman's comments. The minister says, "My officials have briefed me on this issue.'' That's her opening statement. Was she getting good information?

From my experience on this committee, I don't think that the letter our counsel sent to that department would need clarification. I don't think that the letter from our counsel to that office would not be clear as to what we meant, what we thought or the opinion of the committee as to the intent of Parliament.

We need whatever it takes to move this file forward, and I agree with Senator Runciman's comments.

Mr. Bélanger: Would that letter be signed by counsel or by the co-chairs?

Senator Runciman: By the co-chairs.

Mr. Bélanger: I agree. I concur with that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): It is agreed, then.

INTERIM ORDER NO. 3 RESPECTING FLIGHT DECK OCCUPANTS

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 20C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 3 under "New Instruments,'' there has been a succession of interim ministerial orders mandating that if a flight crew member leaves the flight deck during flight time, someone else needs to step in so there are always two people on the flight deck. At issue here is whether this can continue to happen through interim ministerial orders.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct, Madam Chair. Under the Aeronautics Act there is a mechanism for the minister making an interim order in an emergency or urgent situation. That order can be on anything that can be the subject of a regulation under the act. The order is valid for 14 days. However, if the order is then approved by the Governor-in- Council, the order remains in effect for a year or until a regulation is made that takes its place.

Members may recall that the committee had previously expressed concerns with the use of a repeated series of these interim orders, a succession, one after the other. That was in the case of private operators. In that case, a series of 11 orders stayed in place for over three years. The committee had suggested that this was not within the spirit of the Aeronautics Act.

The Minister of Transport acknowledged the committee's concerns but wouldn't rule out the use of successive orders in the future. For their part, department officials advised they would try to ensure that they attained the approval of the Governor-in-Council as quickly as possible in the event that an interim order was necessary for more than two weeks.

In the case of the orders that the committee had raised concerns with previously, regulations have been made. That situation has been resolved.

This is a similar situation, albeit much less egregious. There was a series of three orders. The third order has now been approved by the Governor-in-Council, so it will remain in effect for one year, or until regulations are in place. It has been indicated that they expect to have regulations ready by 2016. Given past precedent, however, I think the committee could expect that if those regulations aren't ready after a year, the approach would be to simply make yet another order.

I suppose for the committee it's a matter of waiting and seeing, but given that concerns with this practice have been raised previously, we thought it at least appropriate to bring it to members' attention at this point.

Mr. Anders: This is one of those rare and fascinating examples. I'm usually very anti-government, but with this one, it's funny because we have the letter to the minister dated 2012, yet with the downing of the German airliner, which I think a lot of people will be familiar with — they had one person on the flight deck and that person chose to crash the airliner — it seems there was an anticipation ahead of time about that. It was fascinating.

I realize that ideally we are looking for a permanent change, and it looks like they're willing to do that next year, but in the meantime I suggest monitoring the file. I don't think we would want to be the ones owning up to saying there can't be or shouldn't be a second person on the flight deck so that doesn't happen.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is it agreed that we'll monitor?

Senator Moore: Our concern is that they may drag this out and go for another interim order. Is it prudent for us to write back and say we would expect that you would not be seeking another interim order and that you would be making the regulatory change?

Mr. Bernhardt: If that's the wish of members, we could certainly write and say the committee notes that this is what happened in this case; the committee has had concerns in the past and hopes that there will be a new regulation in place before the expiry of one year.

Senator Moore: We should put something like that on record. To just sit and wait for another year, I don't think that is really doing our job.

Mr. Albas: I can certainly understand where the senator is coming from, but let's take a step back and look at it. This is exactly why these interim orders exist. It is for when strange unanticipated incidents happen and the government needs the flexibility to respond quickly and ably on an interim basis until our regulations can be changed. It is a very long process to do that. There are certain things ministers can do to have that accelerated, but this is a good example of when the flexibility should be there.

I like the original suggestion of monitoring. If the appropriate follow-ups aren't made, then I think we should pursue, but they are doing their jobs. This is exactly why they have that power.

[Translation]

Ms. Quach: I agree with Senator Moore that there are situations where interim orders are necessary, but to avoid a repeat of the situation where there were 11 interim orders before a regulation was put in place, it would be a good idea to write to the minister to indicate that we do not want to have to resort to a number of interim measures before working on a regulation or bill to regulate it.

I think that is clear and simple and would not prevent the use of interim orders.

[English]

Mr. Albas: The problem is that we only have so many tools. Most of us would agree the government is doing the right thing here, but they need to have an interim order until this can be put into regulation. There is not an abuse of the process. In fact, this is exactly what the process intended. If there was an abuse of the process, or what we had seen previously where intent was made to change a set of regulations but it wasn't completed in enough time so they used the interim orders, then absolutely.

However, I don't think we should be taking any kind of criticism on this because this is the exact tool for the right job. It is when these unanticipated incidents happen and they protect Canadian lives.

Let's monitor the file, but this is not an issue we should be taking up. We should be saving our concerns for legitimate cases where we don't think the process is being utilized correctly.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): You've heard the two different propositions on the floor. Does anyone feel strongly about writing a letter?

Senator Moore: So the idea would be to monitor until when, next April? Is that the thinking, or is this something we would look at again in the fall? How about that? Would we know in the fall of this year that there is some movement?

Mr. Bernhardt: I'm guessing not, simply because when the order was approved, the explanatory note indicated that they expect the regulations in 2016.

Senator Moore: Let me suggest that maybe we monitor it until the fall and bring it back, put it on the agenda, write to them and say you indicated then, so can we still expect the —

Mr. Bernhardt: The 2016?

Senator Moore: Yes.

Mr. Bernhardt: I'm sure we could certainly do that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): I want to note for the record that I noticed the initial interim order here was made March 27, so it is just two months ago at this point.

Mr. Anders: Why don't we write back in early 2016? Monitor it until then, write back and ask for a progress update. I think that's fine. I agree that we should be supervising these things, but we have many files that require our attention. To go back and revisit an issue for anything other than a progress update, then the committee at that stage can make their own decision.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I'm going to read a consensus where there may not be one. We have consensus that there will be a letter — that's a great start — and we'll do it early in 2016 as opposed to very late in 2015. Are we good with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2015-72 — REGULATIONS REPEALING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE FARM INCOME PROTECTION ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 4 under "New Instruments,'' this regulation purports to repeal 10 regulations, although the Canada Gazette says these regulations were already repealed.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. The whole backstory to this is odd to say the least.

Up until 2014, the Consolidated Index of Statutory Instruments listed 84 regulations that had been made under the Farm Income Protection Act. These regulations prescribe commodities for purposes of the act and prescribe prices for those commodities for fixed periods. All of the periods that these 84 regulations related to had long since passed, some for more than 40 years.

Then throughout 2014, up until the end of June, the index included an incomplete note stating that all of these regulations had been repealed. This was not the case. That note no longer appears in the index, and the 84 regulations have been dropped from the index.

After that, we see the publication of SOR/2015-72, which purports to repeal 10 of these 84 regulations. We couldn't understand exactly what was going on, so we asked Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. They told us that the department had put together a package that would repeal all 84 regulations, but they were then told by the Treasury Board Secretariat that dealing with so many at once was inconsistent with the one-for-one rule and that no more than ten should be repealed at a time. Presumably there will now be nine orders repealing these things in batches.

The one-for-one rule was formally a policy requiring regulators to remove a regulation each time they introduced a new regulation that imposes administrative burdens. The policy is now set out in the Red Tape Reduction Act.

It's difficult to see the relevance of this rule to the situation here. These regulations are all spent. They only applied for years that have long passed, and they have no affect whatsoever on administrative burdens on business. Moreover, sending nine packages through the system instead of one is obviously going to increase the resources required each time you make a regulation.

We also suggest that given these 84 regulations are spent, they are no longer listed in the index anyway, and the actual repeal is very much a formality. You could even question why you need to formally repeal these regulations given the attendant costs that would be involved in doing what is a pro forma action.

The question for the committee this morning is whether it wishes to probe this matter a bit further to see exactly what the story behind all this was.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Could we check with the Treasury Board Secretariat whether the "one-for-one'' rule also applies to outdated regulations? If so, we could encourage it to change this "one-for-one'' policy so that it does not apply to outdated regulations. That way, we could remove all of them and not 10 at a time.

If not, perhaps we should write to the Treasury Board Secretariat to ask that this rule be reviewed, because it does not make sense if it applies to outdated regulations.

[English]

Mr. Albas: Another possibility would be to write back to CFIA and cc the Treasury Board Secretariat, asking them to reconsider the process and try to find a more efficient means. I think we're talking about the end. These are all spent regulations. I think we all agree that they have no administrative burden, so why don't we simply ask them to reconsider the process that they've chosen?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is that close enough?

Mr. Bélanger: I don't know if the translation was sufficiently correct.

Mr. Albas: You probably just didn't like my idea.

Mr. Bélanger: No. Maybe you didn't like mine.

I'm suggesting that if there is indeed a one-for-one policy of the Treasury Board Secretariat that applies to regulations that are no longer significant or have expired, can we not ask the Treasury Board Secretariat to review its policy so that it doesn't apply to just this department but others? It is rather nonsensical that such a policy would apply to expired regulations, so let's clear it up with Treasury Board as well.

Mr. Wallace: It is my honour to be here today. It's the first of two meetings that I will be attending.

My understanding of the one-for-one rule is as a minimum, not a maximum. As to the response that legal counsel received from Treasury Board — "It's one for one and it sounded like it was more than one, so we can't do it'' — we should be clarifying that that is a minimum requirement, not a maximum.

If somebody wants to get rid of 84 regulations, in my personal view, speaking for no one but myself, that is a good thing for business, a good thing for government, and the message should go back to whomever that the more we can make life easier for Canadians, the better. Less regulation would make life easier for Canadians.

Mr. Albas: Going back to the actual 84 regulations, these regulations are spent. They're not even being enforced in any way. They've come; they've gone. They're time delineated, et cetera. This is really just a matter of administration, how efficiently we do it. I said, "Let's talk to the administrators that are responsible for it.'' CFIA has said that the Treasury Board Secretariat has given them a process. I've suggested that we ask.

However, I do believe in the greater spirit of compromise. Perhaps Mr. Bélanger will appreciate this. We write to CFIA to ask them to engage with Treasury Board Secretariat to ask them to look for a more efficient process for removing these 84 regulations that are spent. We also cc the President of the Treasury Board, who takes great pride in the Red Tape Reduction Act. I think that having the president know about it might elevate the position of it. Hopefully, we can see that pass.

Mr. Bélanger: I'm not sure it's appropriate to write a letter to someone in the administration and cc a minister.

Mr. Albas: You insist we cc all sorts of people all the time.

Mr. Bélanger: No, I don't.

Mr. Albas: Yes, you do.

Mr. Bélanger: Oh, yeah? Prove it.

Mr. Albas: Go look at the transcripts. You've always asked to elevate these to the highest level. We're dealing with a CFIA file. They've come back to us; they're working in good faith. They've said that the Treasury Board Secretariat has recommended another route. You have raised concerns about this, so I say, okay, let's bring this to the Treasury Board President. I don't think you can go any higher than that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Let me just try to —

Mr. Bélanger: No, hang on, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, but what I've suggested in the matter with respect to the President of the Treasury Board, the minister, is that we ought to write to the minister responsible for the agency as well because you don't send a letter to a public servant and cc the minister. You cc the Treasury Board Secretariat, not to the minister, with all due respect.

Mr. Albas: I did put a proposal forward to interface with CFIA and Treasury Board Secretariat, asking them to work to together.

I go back to my original one. I'm trying to work with all members of this committee. This is a very small administrative issue. We're just asking for an efficient result. I don't think we need to dig into details over something that should be rather minor and easy to handle.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I appreciate everybody's efforts to make my job as easy as possible this morning. Let me just tell you what I'm hearing.

With respect to the issue before us, we're dealing with the CFIA. Mr. Albas has made a proposal about how we deal with CFIA. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Bélanger then suggested that there is also a larger issue, in general, about how the one-for-one rule is applied and that perhaps we could actually treat them as two separate issues, one with respect to this file and one with respect to the larger issue, asking the Treasury Board Secretariat to consider how the one-to-one rule is applied. Would that be agreeable?

Senator Moore: To the secretariat, not the minister. Dan, are you happy with that?

Mr. Albas: I'm always happy, just not satisfied.

Senator Moore: Right.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): It's not my job to make you happy, Dan; I just need a consensus.

Mr. Albas: I said I'm happy, but not satisfied.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): So we're good. Thank you very much.

SOR/2012-138 — FIREARMS INFORMATION REGULATIONS (NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 20D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to "Reply Unsatisfactory'' and Item 5 on our agenda, the Department of Public Safety continues to disagree with this committee that the Firearms Information Regulations are unlawful. The committee articulated reasons for our position, but the department hasn't done the same in responding to us. We seem to be at an impasse with the department.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I think that we have seen some movement here. They've heard what we have to say. I'm happy that we got something and we should just let it go. I don't think it's going to change. That's my opinion, after looking through all of this.

Mr. Bélanger: Are you suggesting we close the file?

Mr. Breitkreuz: We could monitor it, I guess. They are probably going to come up with something when Bill C-42 works its way through the house. I guess we shouldn't have a private conversation here.

Yes, I would monitor the file and let it go.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I'm sorry, counsel, I should have given you a chance to speak.

Mr. Bernhardt: I was essentially going to make the same comment in the sense of referring to Bill C-42. If that bill passes, there will be clear authority for these sorts of provisions. What the committee had suggested was that consideration be given to simply remaking to resolve any doubt.

I think we can take it implicitly from what the department is saying that they're not willing, necessarily, to do that, although they haven't said that in so many words.

Mr. Breitkreuz: They heard what we have to say, so let's just —

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): So we're going to continue to monitor?

Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-49 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ONSHORE PIPELINE REGULATIONS, 1999

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 20E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): With regard to Item 6 under "Reply Unsatisfactory,'' the National Energy Board agreed to make amendments to resolve only two of the nine concerns that we'd raised with the board. This is with respect to onshore pipeline regulations. Clearly, two out of nine is not satisfactory.

Mr. Bernhardt: Perhaps I can go back even further.

The committee started with 13 points. After the first exchange of correspondence, there were nine that were considered unsatisfactory. The committee wished those nine to be pursued. Those nine were pursued. We have satisfactory replies on two of those. So we have gone from 13 to nine. Now, it's suggested we're down to seven that are still unsatisfactory. Those run the gamut. They're set out in the note. They range from provisions that seem unnecessary, for example, section 6, which requires a company to design, construct, operate or abandon a pipeline in a manner that ensures safety and security of the pipeline, the public, the company's employees and the protection of property and the environment.

That's what this whole detailed set of regulations provides for. It's difficult to see how, if somebody complied with all of the other myriad things you have to do under the regulations, you could still be held in contravention of section 6.

It seems that that's intended to be a catch-all, but the board has not come up with any specific example of what someone could do to contravene section 6 after having complied with everything else. It just seems completely unnecessary, and it's hard to see how pipeline companies can know what they're required to do when the regulator can't seem to give an example.

There's an issue that the committee saw last meeting in connection with the Aviation Regulations. This is the idea of requiring that pipeline companies have a policy for internal reporting of hazards and covering situations where people who make a report would be granted immunity from disciplinary action. Again, there is no requirement in the regulations that people report hazards, so why should someone ever be disciplined for failing to report?

There's also the question that arose again with the Aviation Regulations as to whether this has more to do with labour law than with pipelines and pipeline safety. It is suggested that any such policy could only constitute an attempt to interpret or override existing labour laws, which there would be no authority to do, so this policy would be completely meaningless legally in any event.

There are also questions of wording, distinctions between things like an identified hazard and a potential hazard, whether it's necessary to require that a management system be systematic. We suggested that something that is not systematic can't be a system simply as a matter of logic.

There's also the issue of requiring compliance with various non-legislative documents under the regulations: programs, policies, goals, processes, manuals and the like. The committee referred the board to its report number 78, which dealt with this issue, and the board has replied that it doesn't find the committee's position to be applicable in the present case.

I suggest it's quite interesting that the board presumes to have a better understanding of the committee's report than the committee does. It apparently considers that the report is restricted to situations involving non-compliance with licences and permits. The note sets out excerpts from the report that I think illustrate that that's not the case.

To make a long story short, at the end of the day, we suggest that these seven remaining items be the subject of yet another letter to the board. They seem to promise one or two things each time we write, so I guess, if we keep knocking on the door —

Senator McInnis: Your letter would include the logic that you've used in explaining each one of these? I agree with your position on all seven.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Senator McInnis: Would the board be cognizant of this, or is this the secretary to the board that is communicating here? Obviously she's writing the letter, but the board is not —

Mr. Bernhardt: I believe the secretary is also their general counsel, so I would think this is going back and forth between the lawyers for the committee and the lawyers for the board.

Senator McInnis: Lawyers have a lot of common sense, as we know, so if you put in your letter what you put in this document, I think it may bear more fruit.

Mr. Bernhardt: The letter would certainly follow along the lines of what's set out in the note.

Senator Moore: I was going to suggest the same thing. I don't want to get into protracted back and forth letters, so let's do one more at least. Then, if it doesn't happen, it may be useful to have a sit-down with these people. Anyway, another letter.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): One more letter on its way. Thank you.

SOR/93-195 — QUEBEC MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS' LEVY (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 20F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 7 under "Reply Unsatisfactory (?)''. I would like committee members to keep in mind that Senator Moore said earlier that counsel's communications are always clear. In this case, having advised that amendments to resolve the committee's concern would be made in 2013, the Farm Products Council of Canada now indicates that there was miscommunication and that no amendments will in fact be made, pending the resolution of ongoing court proceedings.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. In fact, yes, there are ongoing court proceedings. There are a number of actions. The issue in each case, in various permutations, is the extent of the Quebec Commodity Board's authority over products that are eventually marketed outside the province.

At one point, the Farm Products Council had indicated that they preferred to wait before making any amendments to the regulations until all this litigation was resolved. Then, however, back in 2012, they seemed to change their view and advised that amendments were being processed, and the committee was updated several times on the progress of those amendments. They'd been sent to Justice for review. They were awaiting final preparation of documents to be submitted to Treasury Board.

Now, again, the Farm Products Council suggests, as you indicated, Madam Chair, that there was miscommunication and that no amendments will be made pending resolution of the ongoing court proceedings.

Regardless of the wisdom of awaiting the outcome of the court actions — and I think that may well be prudent — it's clear that any miscommunication was strictly on the part of the Farm Products Council. I think, as is made quite clear, they repeatedly told the committee where these amendments were, how they were progressing, that they had been sent to Justice, and so on. I think the committee, if it wants, would be entirely justified in seeking an explanation for that. As I say, that's aside from the issue of the approach of waiting for these court cases to be resolved.

There was a judgment from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal just this week, so things are moving fairly fluidly in that regard.

Senator Runciman: Counsel, in your note, you refer to the Quebec Superior Court appeal. You also mention "cases,'' plural. In terms of awaiting the outcome, are you referring specifically to that appeal of the superior court?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think that's certainly one of them. I understand that the hearing at the court of appeal is set for January.

Just this week there was a decision from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, which was sort of the other side of that particular case. That case dealt with a producer in Quebec. There was also an injunction granted by the Quebec courts against the purchaser in New Brunswick, and just this week the court of appeal in New Brunswick refused to enforce the injunction in New Brunswick against the producer there.

Senator Runciman: Wouldn't you agree that there is some wisdom in awaiting the outcome?

Mr. Bernhardt: If I were in their shoes, I think that's probably what I would be leaning towards as well.

Senator Runciman: I think we should do that, but you're also recommending we write with respect to getting some explanation.

Mr. Bernhardt: That depends on how members feel about this, in their words, "miscommunication'' and how that all came to be.

Senator Runciman: We want a clarification of what occurred there. I have no problem with monitoring the file but also asking for some clarification with respect to that matter.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Senator D. Smith: When it's before the courts, you have to wait and see what the outcome is going to be.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

FEE SCHEDULE FOR ICEBREAKING SERVICES

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 20G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 8 under "Part Action Promised,'' we'd identified some issues with respect to the definitions related to "ship'' and "government ship,'' which has now been addressed, but there is an unresolved issue related to whether a fee rebate for ships that have transported aggregates or gypsum is in fact authorized.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. Ships carrying these cargoes at the end of the season get a rebate. The reason given is that the value of these cargoes, aggregates and gypsum is quite low.

This gives rise to a couple of questions. The first is the fact that there seems to be no relationship between the value of the service, that is, the icebreaking, and the cost to a particular ship of providing the service. That the cost won't vary, depending on what is on the ship, is arguably sufficient to transform this fee into a tax, in which case it would be unauthorized.

The committee has dealt with this issue in a somewhat similar context in connection with marine navigation services. The navigation services fees were based on the tonnage of the ship; the bigger the ship, the more you paid. That gave rise to the same question, and the committee voted to not pursue that question.

The first issue for the committee is whether this is sufficiently different to distinguish between the two cases or whether it's not; that is, whether there's a qualitative difference between a fee based on the size of the ship as opposed to a fee based on what the ship's carrying.

Aside from that issue, it's suggested that there can be a fairly good argument made that this rebate mechanism is simply not authorized by the Oceans Act. Effectively, the fees are being used as a tool for economic development by providing a benefit to people, support to people who are transporting low-value cargo.

The purpose of the Oceans Act is to protect and manage the oceans and Canada's marine resources. You can question whether providing economic subsidies to certain people in certain industries is consistent with the purposes of that act. You can also question whether the rebate mechanism is consistent with the actual fee-setting authority in the act. That fee-setting authority is stated to be for the purposes of cost recovery. Obviously, where you give a rebate back to people, you're undermining cost recovery.

In any event, on the committee's instructions, we could pursue some, any or all of those issues, depending on how members feel.

Mr. Albas: I would like to thank them for the positive response we received on at least getting definitions of "ship'' and "government ship.'' When I read this file previously, I though those things were a bit confusing. Now that's very clear in my mind.

However, there are still some remaining items. I think we should write back on those.

Secondary to my suggestion, I would like to ask counsel a question. At our last meeting, we had a file where we made the suggestion of establishing a fee versus fixing a fee because there were concerns with how that was done. I know that the rebate is extraneous to this situation and should be addressed, but as far as them allowing the variance for different types of loads, would that help to clarify the situation? Or is this a situation where that thinking may not be helpful or appropriate based on the rebate and based on the size of vessels?

Mr. Bernhardt: I'm not sure it would in this case, in the sense that no matter how broad your fee-setting authority was, how general, it would still have to be for the purposes of the act. If the expressed purpose of the way you've structured the fee is to encourage economic development or to give a benefit to certain industries, I think it would remain open to question whether that was consistent with or was part of the purposes of the Oceans Act, which is to protect resources.

Mr. Albas: That clarifies it for me. I do believe we should write back on the outstanding points and see if we can get any further progress.

[Translation]

Ms. Quach: I am wondering what is done in cases where counsel tells us that these fees are not really consistent with the purpose of the Oceans Act, which is to protect the oceans and marine resources, and that the discounts exceed the scope of the legislation. That is for my own understanding. In those cases, do we write to the department again? That has already been done, but what do we do to find out the situation we are in, if it does not respect the spirit of the act? Should this be part of the act?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: This is the first time the file has been before the committee, so the chief weapon the committee still has is the power of persuasion. I suppose the intent of writing back to the department is in the hopes of convincing them of the wisdom of the committee's reasoning, and if that proves not to be the case, then the file will be back before the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Quach: Does our power of persuasion go so far as to allow us to ask them to withdraw these fees if they do not respect the purpose of the act?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee can make a request if it so chooses. If its powers of persuasion are insufficient, either with the officials or with the minister, then the committee has to consider whether it wishes to take things to the next level, either through a report to the houses or recommending disallowance or calling witnesses or whatever other mechanisms it has. Traditionally, the committee's best two weapons have been persuasion and persistence.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are we agreed that, as a first step, we'll pursue this by letter?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-423 — PATENT RULES

SOR/2003-208 — RULES AMENDING THE PATENT RULES

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 20H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 9 under "Part Action Taken.'' Two amendments to correct discrepancies between the English and French versions of the Patent Act have been passed by Parliament, although it's worth noting that one of them has not yet been brought into force. With respect to patent rules, amendments were to have been prepublished in the summer of 2013, but we're now being advised that that won't take place until 2017.

Counsel?

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: I have nothing to add, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): How do members wish to proceed on this file?

Mr. Hillyer: Since we already have a timeline before us, I think we should monitor that file and make sure they keep to their timeline.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are committee members comfortable with monitoring this file?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-125 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PENSION CONTINUATION REGULATIONS AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 20I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to "Reply Satisfactory'' and Item 9, the amendments addressing the committee's concerns will be made as part of an initiative to implement a new optional survivor benefit program under the RCMP pension plan. The timing of these amendments is, as yet, uncertain.

Counsel may also want to give us a quick update as to why references to the term "spouse'' might be retained in the regulations, even though it's not in the act any more.

Mr. Abel: That's correct, Madam Chair. In a number of provisions, the RCMP, when this file was last before the committee, had suggested that the references to "spouse'' might have to be maintained. The committee then noted that the act no longer makes any references to spouses. Instead, the act now describes married and cohabiting survivors of RCMP members.

The RCMP has now agreed to remove all references to spouses. At this point, they're not sure how they will draft those amendments, but apparently they are working on it.

The commissioner has indicated that he expects to be able to provide a date for making amendments this fall. I would suggest we could monitor the file for now.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-310 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF A TWO DOLLAR CIRCULATION COIN SPECIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS AND DETERMINING THE DESIGN

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 20J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 11 is also under "Reply Satisfactory.'' In this instance, the mint has agreed to clean up terminology in line with concerns that were raised by this committee earlier.

Mr. Abel: The reply from the mint confirms that counsel had identified a linguistic misuse, and they're thankful to the committee for identifying that. The inquiry also incidentally revealed another linguistic error in the mint's practices, and they're glad to have identified that. They have issued a bulletin to their staff to avoid the error in the future.

I would note that the mint suggests that the order need not be amended, and their reasoning is that the English version of the order provides an accurate description of the coin to be minted.

The committee has always taken the view that both linguistic versions of statutory instruments should be clear in their own right. However, in this case, in part the matter is moot because the coin has already been minted, but also, in our view, the error in the French version would be unlikely to give rise to any substantial ambiguity anyway. I would suggest that there is nothing to be done at this point and that the file could be closed.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/76-373 — PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND POTATO MARKETING LEVIES ORDER.

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 20K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under "Progress,'' moving on to Item 12, there were issues with respect to obsolete language and rates being charged by the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board. We are now being told that proposed amendments have been forwarded to the Department of Justice for examination.

Counsel?

Mr. Abel: I have nothing to add.

Mr. Anders: Since we're seeing some progress, I suggest that we monitor the file.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Monitor?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-88 — EXPORT OF SUBSTANCES ON THE EXPORT CONTROL LIST REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 20L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 13 falls under the heading "Progress'' as well. The Department of the Environment has advised that amendments to the regulations are anticipated to be made in late 2016.

Mr. Abel: That's correct, Madam Chair. The last time this was before the committee in November, members wondered if there could be more specificity on when they expected to make them. That has been provided. I would note that the department also allows that that forecast might change. If the members are satisfied, counsel could continue to monitor the file for now.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed that we will monitor?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEE SCHEDULE: FEES TO BE PAID FOR MARINE NAVIGATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CANADIAN COAST GUARD.

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 20M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 14, the first of fourteen items on our agenda under the heading "Progress (?)''. This is a case where it is one step forward and two steps back. The department has agreed to remove the definition of "tonne'' from the English version, but there are unresolved issues on two other files.

Mr. Abel: The department indicates that the one amendment in this case will proceed along with other amendments to the fee schedules addressing the committee's concerns, one of which was the icebreaking fees, which was discussed earlier. On that file, there was no timeline yet for promised amendments. I would suggest that another letter be drafted in line with what is going to be written on the icebreaking fees file.

Senator McInnis: Asking for a timeline?

Mr. Abel: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

C.R.C. C. 1551 — TEXTILE LABELLING AND ADVERTISING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 20N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 15, we had previously been advised that the Competition Bureau was absolutely confident that we would be able to see amendments in this fiscal year, but now we're being advised that we're only talking about the prepublication of proposed amendments by the end of this fiscal year or shortly thereafter.

Mr. Abel: That's the crux of it, Madam Chair. This is the first time the bureau has indicated that they were only speaking about prepublication. That sets the deadline quite a bit further back than had been indicated to the committee earlier. At present, the amendments have not been prepublished, and that's where matters stand.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): How do committee members want to proceed?

Senator Moore: Is this another situation that they're alleging miscommunication? This is the third time today. I feel like our integrity is under attack here.

Mr. Bernhardt: No, I think this is yet another case of a deadline being pushed back in the sense that we've gone from final publication by the end of the fiscal year to prepublication sometime after the end of the fiscal year. I suppose you could look at it as two steps back.

Senator Moore: What do you recommend, counsel? Shall we just monitor the file, or would we write a letter?

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose the committee could ask for a firm date for the final publication and completion of these amendments and indicate that the committee fully expects that date to be adhered to this time.

Senator Moore: This has been here for 12 years.

Mr. Bernhardt: I would note that they undertook public consultation in 2007.

Senator Moore: So why isn't it happening? Why don't we ask for a firm date? We have nothing to lose.

Mr. Hillyer: I suggest we do what Mr. Bernhardt suggested, that we write and ask for a progress report and a commitment for a date.

Mr. Albas: May I make one point here? When they prepublish, there is usually a 60-day period of consultation. For an independent, arm's-length group like the Competition Bureau, I think that's important for them. So while I understand that members are unhappy with the push-back in timeline, at some point they have to adhere to a process that I think all of us benefit from, which is transparency, communication with the public and then feedback.

While we're very confident in our approach, Canadians may differ, and I think the Competition Bureau has an obligation to hear those voices.

I do understand people are upset or frustrated, but prepublication of the proposed — I notice that there's a "bolding'' here. I'm just going to criticize that. All prepublication is proposed. It's bizarre that we would be emphasizing that other than to agitate members. I hope counsel would look at the reports and try to present the information in as neutral language as they think and then let members decide what they should get agitated about.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): To be fair, the point being made is that we had been promised firm amendments and what we have received instead was a proposal, so I don't think we should —

Mr. Albas: I would just say, Madam Chair, that the job of counsel is to present us with the information they've received and their opinions on the legality and recommend positions. It's up to us to decide what we are happy with and what we are not. When I see those kinds of things, especially for members who may not be aware of how the 12 steps of the regulatory process function, it may give the wrong impression.

Again, we're dealing with the independent, arm's-length Competition Bureau that is addressing our concerns, but they do have commitments that they have to make beyond those to this committee. I always ask that we be mindful of those things.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Being mindful, we still have a consensus that we're going to write a firm letter saying that we would like a firm timeline and that this time we really mean it. Thank you very much.

Senator Moore: And not in bold.

SOR/91-365 — PARI-MUTUEL BETTING SUPERVISION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 20O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 16. There is a discrepancy between the English and French versions of one subsection of the regulations. Our counsel advises that where both versions are equally authoritative, the accepted principle is to adopt the more restrictive meaning. The Justice Department has advised that a possible approach to harmonize the versions has been prepared, but there is no decision made regarding the timing for a bill that would amend this subparagraph, given Justice's heavy legislative agenda.

Counsel?

Mr. Abel: I have nothing to add, Madam Chair.

Mr. Vellacott: I think it's a simple matter of writing back and asking for a specific time frame.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-118 — TIMBER REGULATIONS, 1993

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 20P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 17, the Natural Resources Department had advised us that final versions of eight proposed amendments to the regulations were being reviewed prior to publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette. More recently, however, the department states that the minister "has been provided recommendations on how to proceed in this matter and continues to consider options.'' So that's making this matter perhaps unclear.

Mr. Abel: That's precisely it, Madam Chair. It seems that matters may have gone a little backwards. In June of last year, it seemed that proposed amendments were almost ready for prepublication. Now it's unclear as to whether they're coming forward at all. I would say some clarity is needed.

Senator Runciman: If anyone doubts the wheels of government grind slowly, they just have to spend some time in this committee.

In looking at this, I agree with counsel's recommendation that we seek clarification as to where this is going. It's passing strange: When you look at the September 2014 letter, the draft amendments had been completed. They're obviously not checking their own files because they told us exactly the same thing two years previous to this.

It is a concern and we should ask them to clarify whether things are changing here. We need to find out what the intention is of the department in terms of dealing with this issue.

Mr. Albas: I completely support what Senator Runciman has said because we want to see a positive conclusion in order to resolve our concerns.

I point out that there have been many changes as to who the minister is, and it is incumbent upon high-level bureaucrats when those cases happen that they get the consent of elected officials for any issue going forward. I ask that the letter be done respecting that we appreciate the previous commitment by the minister and that we would like to continue to see this move forward on a positive line, so could they please clarify and give us more assurance into when that should be done.

Senator Runciman: I'm sure counsel will always be polite.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): I'm sure they will to.

Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-34 — CANADIAN CHICKEN ANTI-DUMPING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 20Q:1.)

SOR/2002-35 — CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2006-180 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2007-251 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2002-36 — CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-22 — CANADIAN CHICKEN LICENSING REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-2 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN LICENSING REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-249 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN LICENSING REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-76 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN LICENSING REGULATIONS

SOR/2011-244 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN LICENSING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Y, p. 20Y:1.)

SOR/2003-274 — CHICKEN FARMERS OF CANADA DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix Z, p. 20Z:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Counsel, there are about five similar items on our agenda. I wonder if we could lump them together — 18, 19, 20, 28 and 29. They deal with similar things. If you wondered where all the chickens went; they're back.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes. The next three are all identical. The other two have little wrinkles, but we can deal with them together, yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): On these, counsel gave a good summary, but I'll reiterate. Like a number of other regulations made by the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the relevant regulations contain definitions that duplicate definitions already found in the Chicken Farmers of Canada proclamation, pursuant to which the regulations were made. The Chicken Farmers of Canada had been reluctant to delete these definitions, even though they are legally unnecessary. The terms mean the same as they do in the enabling instrument, and there is no need to repeat them.

Counsel points out that this repetition could lead to uncertainty and confusion and that it departs from the general principle that legislation should contain only what is legally necessary.

Eventually our committee advised that it would recommend disallowance of these definitions. The committee was then informed that the Chicken Farmers of Canada were prepared to make the amendments requested by the committee. We continue to wait for these amendments.

The last letter from this group concludes by expressing the hope that the committee "will be satisfied that we have addressed all issues and that they will bring a close to this file.'' Counsel advises, given past experiences with the Chicken Farmers of Canada, that in an absence of an actual draft of the proposed amendments, it is impossible to say whether this will prove to be so.

Mr. Bernhardt: I don't have a lot more to say on these first three. That's the situation. We're simply suggesting that given the history of these files, perhaps some caution should be exercised in terms of how optimistic the committee is that these things will actually get done in a satisfactory manner.

One thing I would note in the council's January 12 letter is the committee had asked for an assurance that its concerns would be satisfied. The council suggests it's not in a position to promise particular amendments because even though it has to approve the orders and regulations made by the Chicken Farmers, they're required under the act to give their approval where the order or regulation is necessary for implementing the marketing plan.

From this, the council concludes that unless the order or regulation has an actual legal problem, or the council is not satisfied with the factual circumstances and if they justify the order or regulation, they're required to approve.

I would suggest that's not quite the case and that if a provision in a proposed regulation is legally not necessary — for example, if it repeats a definition already applicable — then that provision is not necessary for the implementation of the marketing plan and that, therefore, the council would be acting entirely within the scope of its authority in refusing to approve it.

That's, in a sense, by-the-by, but it might be worth pointing that out to the council.

As you say, the situation is identical for Items 19 and 20. Do you want to jump ahead?

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Senator Meredith, do you want to speak to those first three first, and then we can point out the wrinkles in the other two?

Senator Meredith: We can identify the wrinkles in the other two.

Given the fact that we've made requests to have the deletion of these repetitive definitions in the Chicken Farmers proclamation, my recommendation would be that counsel meet with both the Farm Products Council as well as the Chicken Farmers, identify these repetitive definitions and ensure that they're deleted, or give us a time frame as to when they are to be deleted so as to not cause unnecessary confusion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): On that general process, do members agree with that?

Senator Moore: So set up a meeting?

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): A meeting of counsel and those groups.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Bernhardt: The other two are under "Action Promised (?)'', Items 28 and 29.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): I had made an additional note with regard to No. 28 concerning the need for and appropriateness of the discretion conferred on the Chicken Farmers of Canada to decide whether or not a licence will be suspended or revoked, or an application will be rejected, even though the conditions for suspension, revocation or rejection exist.

Senator Moore: So we've dealt with 18, 19 and 20?

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Yes.

Senator Moore: Now we're on 28.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): And we're also going to be dealing with 29.

Mr. Bernhardt: The only thing I'd add with regard to the additional amendment is that the Chicken Farmers have previously been quite adamant that they did not see the need to make this amendment. So now when they say they hope that the committee will be satisfied they've addressed all issues, does that include the amendment that the Chicken Farmers have previously disputed or not? It's difficult to know exactly.

Mr. Albas: I was going to make a suggestion, because there are a number of files here. Usually when you meet face to face there is a more open discussion on these kinds of issues, but because there are so many files here, this might require more than one meeting. I think we should give some latitude to counsel to impress upon them. I don't think we'll see this meeting before our next meeting.

I'd like to see some resolve on this moving forward for the next iteration of this committee to be able to see some progress on these files.

Senator Moore: So, Mr. Albas, you're suggesting that the meeting include consideration of these two files, as well.

Mr. Albas: I think we should try to deal with all of them, but there may be requirement for more than one meeting based on what the joint chair just said. We don't know exactly —

Senator Moore: — what's going to come out of the first meeting.

Mr. Albas: Yes, so a follow-up meeting may be required.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-33 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 20R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 21 on our agenda. Amendments that were forecast to be submitted to Treasury Board at the end of 2013 or early 2014 and which were then postponed until late 2014 have again been delayed and are now anticipated to be completed in 2015.

Amendments to eight provisions have been promised to provide clarification and to remove redundancies and inconsistencies. In addition, the committee had sought explanations as to the operation of the transitional provisions pertaining to the amendments made by SOR/2007-33.

After several exchanges of correspondence, the committee considered the additional information provided by the department to be satisfactory.

Counsel, do you have anything further to add?

Mr. Abel: Not much, Madam Chair. I will note that the department has been preparing the amendments for six years and a succession of short delays have added up. They're anticipated for some time this year, so I suppose the only thing to do is to keep seeking progress updates. Hopefully they'll be made before the committee returns.

Mr. Vellacott: I suggest we monitor the file through the summer and follow up with them to see that they're doing it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-202 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 20S:1.)

SOR/2008-253 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (PERMANENT RESIDENTS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 20T:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): I'm wondering, counsel, if we can group agenda Items 22 and 23 together, as they're quite similar.

Mr. Abel: That would be fine.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): The department says it's possible that amendments to correct technical problems will be put forward this calendar year. The department was asked to clarify the nature of the amendments to be made to address the committee's concerns and whether it still intended to proceed in 2015. Its latest response simply indicates that the nature of the amendments is to correct technical problems and that it is possible the amendments will be put forward this calendar year.

Regarding item 22, the department has agreed to amend three provisions of the regulations to address the committee's concerns, and on Item 23 there is only one outstanding matter.

Mr. Abel: I suggest that the department's indication that they might be made this year — it's possible they might be made this year — could probably be firmed up by a further letter.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-324 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ESQUIMALT GRAVING DOCK REGULATIONS, 1989

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 20U:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Moving on to Item 24, the regulations use units of measurement that no longer represent the current tonnage measurement system under the International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of Ships, 1969. Amendments were to have been made in the fall of 2014.

Last fall, Public Works and Government Services Canada advised that the amendments were not yet finalized. The department's March 10, 2015 letter indicates that the process remains ongoing and that the department will advise the committee when it is complete. No indication is given as to when it's now expected that amendments will be made.

Mr. Abel: Aside from the delays noted, Madam Chair, it's also unclear whether the department ever agreed to the committee's suggestion some years ago to remove from the regulations references to the previous tonnage measurement system that was in force before the convention. These references are still in the regulations, but they don't serve any purpose — the system isn't used any more — and it was viewed as a little confusing. The department probably should be asked to confirm whether that's also planned to be addressed in these promised amendments.

Mr. Bélanger: I'm just wondering if we should cc the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Is that facetious?

Mr. Bélanger: It's a joke, yes.

Senator McInnis: We need to write back.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Write back and get the time frame. Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2010-128 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 20V:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 25. In July 2011, the Department of Industry acknowledged that a minor correction was needed to the wording of the English version of the Canada Business Corporations Regulations, 2001. One of the provisions contains an unnecessary reference to a chapter number of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada in which the regulations can be found.

In response to the committee's inquiry as to when a promised correction will be made, the Department of Industry has replied that public consultations on the Canada Business Corporations Regulations, 2001, concluded in May 2014. The submissions received are being reviewed to determine appropriate responses, including possible legislative and regulatory amendments. "As part of this ongoing work, the department will work to ensure that the correction identified by the committee is addressed.''

Counsel, do you have anything further?

Mr. Abel: I would draw members' attention to the history of this file as it's not contained in the correspondence.

In 2011 the committee indicated that the department's plan would be acceptable — to roll the amendment in with others — provided that the amendment was made within a reasonable time frame, which the committee normally considered to be two years.

Two years later, in December 2013, the committee reviewed correspondence indicating that there was still no time frame. That brings us to 2015, two years later, and there is still no time frame.

Senator D. Smith: That is an unsatisfactory response. They should be told to get on with it, make it a priority and finish it off.

Mr. Anders: I would be asking for a timeline. It's also important to understand it's a minor correction to an English translation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-22 — TEXTILE FLAMMABILITY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix W, p. 20W:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 26 on our agenda, an amendment to resolve a minor discrepancy regarding what the regulations do not apply to was agreed to in June 2012. The forecast time for making this amendment has been given by the department as 2013, then winter 2014, autumn 2014 and most recently spring 2015.

Mr. Abel: I can advise that no amendment has yet been published in the Canada Gazette. We could draft a letter to see if they're going to meet their spring deadline, or we could wait and see what happens.

Senator D. Smith: We can tell them the committee will not be happy if they do not meet the deadline.

Mr. Albas: I'm happy, just not satisfied.

Senator D. Smith: It could still be made this spring.

Mr. Hillyer: If we have a deadline that's imminent, maybe we should wait to see before we get too upset about them missing it. They've missed it for a few years now, but maybe this time is the charm.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Mr. Hillyer suggests we monitor for a short time to see if the deadline will be met. Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-194 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE FISHERIES ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix X, p. 20X:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Moving on to Item 27, promised amendments were to form part of a package of amendments that was forecast to be made in 2012-13. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans now advises that it is its objective to finalize the amendments in the near future. In connection with the ongoing removal of year-round close times from Fisheries Regulations, the Manitoba Fisheries Regulations, 1987, will be addressed in the second phase of the close times project, while the remaining year-round close times in the Northwest Territories Fisheries Regulations are for bodies of water in located in Nunavut and will disappear once proposed new fisheries regulations for Nunavut are in place.

No time frames for these actions are given, although the department reports that the project remains on its work plan.

Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: I have nothing to add.

Mr. Vellacott: We could monitor and follow up over the summer.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Moore: No time frame is given, so we're going to monitor over the summer. Will this be brought back to us in the fall; is that what the intention would be?

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): That sounds like the plan.

Senator Moore: Okay. Thank you.

SOR/2013-114 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-115 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PRIVACY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix AA, p. 20AA:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 30 under the heading "Action Promised (?)''. The regulations amended schedules to the Privacy Regulations and the Access to Information Regulations by deleting references to various investigative bodies that no longer exist and by updating the names of other investigative bodies. Some of new names referred to the wrong department, however, or referred to the former name of the right department.

The department acknowledges these errors, but when asked if the committee could take it as understood that the regulations would be amended in this regard, it responded only that it is "committed to rectifying the situation at the appropriate time and through the appropriate means.''

Counsel advises that other names in the regulations did not match the entries contained in the online Government Electronic Directory Services database known as GEDS. So the Department the Justice has recognized that the names used in the regulations to refer to certain investigative bodies are incorrect but has provided no clear commitment to correct them.

Mr. Abel: That's correct, Madam Chair. As background for the benefit of members, the designation of investigative bodies under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act allows government institutions to share information with these bodies without the consent of individuals, and it exempts these bodies from having to respond to certain disclosure requests that can be made under either of those acts.

At this point, we have two names that the department has confirmed are correct, but the entries in GEDS are incorrect. The department has asked the responsible sections to update those, but this hasn't yet been done in either case.

In the other two cases, the names of the sections are correct, but the responsible departments or agencies are outdated. As you mentioned, Justice has provided a pretty vague response. They've said that they'll rectify the situation at the appropriate time and through the appropriate means. Presumably, by "appropriate means'' they mean that they're planning to roll it in when other amendments are made. The "appropriate time'' is at least not two years after they were made aware of the problem. Beyond that, only they know.

Mr. Albas: I suggest we write back seeking clarification of what they mean by "appropriate time'' and "appropriate means'' as a start.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Senator D. Smith: I agree, but I think they should be told it's an unsatisfactory response, and then what he said. They're not taking it seriously.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Albas: Happy, but not satisfied.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): It's kind of a theme.

SOR/2007-255 — ELIGIBLE FINANCIAL CONTRACT REGULATIONS (CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT)

SOR/2007-256 — ELIGIBLE FINANCIAL CONTRACT GENERAL RULES (BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT)

SOR/2007-257 — ELIGIBLE FINANCIAL CONTRACT GENERAL RULES (COMPANIES' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT)

SOR/2007-258 — ELIGIBLE FINANCIAL CONTRACT REGULATIONS (WINDING-UP AND RESTRUCTURING ACT)

(For text of documents, see Appendix BB, p. 20BB:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 31 under "Action Promised.'' The Department of Finance has now agreed to address both matters raised by our counsel dealing with language discrepancies in connection with these regulations, following a broader review. No projected time frame for doing so has been given.

Mr. Abel: I would add that the department had previously agreed to address both issues and then changed their mind on the latter issue. Further correspondence from the committee was successful to persuade them to agree to address both issues.

As you say, Madam Chair, no timeline is currently provided. Perhaps the department could be asked to give that to the committee.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-252 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN HATCHING EGG PRODUCERS QUOTA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix CC, p. 20CC:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 32 is yet another chicken matter. The Canadian Hatching Egg Producers have advised that subsection 2(2) of the regulations, which the committee has determined to be unnecessary, is to be repealed. The amendments will be submitted to the Department of Justice for examination shortly. At the same time, a similar provision in the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Levies Order will also be repealed.

Mr. Bernhardt: If members concur, we can monitor that and follow up in the usual fashion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Mr. Anders, do you have anything to add to that?

Mr. Anders: Let freedom reign; let freedom reign; amen, let freedom reign.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): You just wanted to say that.

Mr. Anders: We have had success. We are repealing unnecessary regulations.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Monitor the file?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-44 — DUTIES RELIEF REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix DD, p. 20DD:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 33 under "Action Taken.'' There is some good news here. In the course of reviewing these regulations, a possible discrepancy was noted between the English and French versions of subparagraph 133(a)(ii) of the Customs Tariff. The French version of this provision has now been clarified by an amendment made by the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. So that is awesome work by this committee and counsel.

Anything further, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: That file can be closed.

SOR/2003-212 — CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION COST RECOVERY FEES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix EE, p. 20EE:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): On Item 34, the sole outstanding matter in connection with these regulations has been resolved by the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014. So another good news story for that particular act. That file can be closed as well.

SOR/2005-370 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2005-3 (TEXTILES AND APPAREL)

(For text of documents, see Appendix FF, p. 20FF:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 35, the sole outstanding matter in connection with this instrument was a discrepancy between the English and French versions of a tariff item in the schedule to the act. Again, the necessary correction has been made now by the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014.

What would we ever do without this act? Isn't it great? We'll close that file as well.

SOR/2011-191 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF (HARMONIZED SYSTEM CONVERSION, 2012)

(For text of documents, see Appendix GG, p. 20GG:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Similarly, on agenda Item 36, the outstanding matters in connection with this instrument were discrepancies between the English and French versions of two tariff items in the schedule to the act. The necessary corrections have now been made by the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014. We can close that file, too.

SOR/2015-27 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix HH, p. 20HH:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Moving on to Item 37, this instrument amends seven provisions to address matters raised by our committee going back to 2005.

Counsel, is there anything further on that?

Mr. Bernhardt: I will quickly summarize.

There are provisions for which authority was lacking at the time they were first made. They've been remade under an amended enabling provision. A redundant provision has been revoked, and some parameters have been placed on the exercise of the discretion by the President of the CBSA when taking certain decisions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We'll close that one as well.

SOR/2015-35 — REGULATIONS REPEALING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY DISTRICT NO. 3 REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix II, p. 20II:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 38 on our agenda, on October 10, 2014, the minister approved the proposed regulations repealing the Laurentian Pilotage Authority District No. 3 Regulations. As a result, the authority has now proceeded with the repeal of the regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee has been looking for that for some time because these regulations no longer had any application.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): All right. Good work. We'll be closing that file as well.

SI/2014-76 — BRITISH COLUMBIA INDEMNITY INTEREST REMISSION ORDER (HST)

SI/2014-81 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTIONS 195 AND 196 OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-83 — ORDER FIXING NOVEMBER 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH DIVISION 29 OF PART 6 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2014-84 — ORDER FIXING NOVEMBER 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTIONS 365 TO 466 OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-85 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2014-86 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2014-87 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2014-88 — ORDER REPEALING THE ORDER DESIGNATING THE REGISTRAR OF THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL AS DEPUTY HEAD WITH RESPECT TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

SI/2014-108 — HOLDERS OF THE COMMERCIAL ROE HERRING FISHING LICENCES REMISSION ORDER

SI/2014-110 — REMISSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF FEES FOR CERTAIN PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESIDENCE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO HAVE BEEN IN OR ARE INTENDING TO TRAVEL TO AN EBOLA-AFFECTED COUNTRY

SI/2015-8 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2015-9 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2015-10 — ORDER FIXING FEBRUARY 1, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTIONS 261 AND 268 OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-11 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH DIVISION 20 OF PART 4 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2015-12 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2015-13 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT

SI/2015-14 — ORDER FIXING DECEMBER 1, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-16 — ORDER DECLINING TO SET ASIDE OR REFER BACK TO THE CRTC BROADCASTING DECISION CRTC 2014-617

SI/2015-17 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY AFTER THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-19 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACTS COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-21 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY AFTER THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-22 — ORDER FIXING MARCH 16, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2015-23 — DALE ROBERTS INCOME TAX REMISSION ORDER

SI/2015-24 — ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CONCERNING THE TWO-YEAR REVIEW OF THE LIST SET OUT IN THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES

SOR/94-558 — HUMAN PATHOGENS IMPORTATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-234 — ORDER APPROVING THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS REPEALING THE LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY DISTRICT NO. 3 REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-287 — ORDER 2014-87-10-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2014-288 — ORDER 2014-112-10-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2014-312 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-313 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF ROUGH DIAMONDS ACT

SOR/2014-315 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN HATCHING EGG PRODUCERS QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-318 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2014-319 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2014-320 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1986

SOR/2015-38 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2015-39 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (RUSSIA) REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-40 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (UKRAINE) REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-41 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2015-42 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MANITOBA SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-43 — REGULATIONS REPEALING THE HUMAN PATHOGENS IMPORTATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-46 — MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-47 — ORDER 2015-87-01-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2015-48 — ORDER 2015-66-01-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2015-50 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2015-52 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS FISCAL MANAGEMENT ACT

SOR/2015-53 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-59 — ORDER 2015-87-02-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2015-87 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): There are 48 items under "Statutory Instruments Without Comment,'' and that might be a record for this particular committee. Maybe that's because we've had a couple of meetings where we've had to reschedule things, but that's excellent work by this committee and by counsel. There are some chicken items in the mix there, too, so there's hope for the Chicken Farmers.

Our next meeting is scheduled for —

Mr. Breitkreuz: You are about to announce the next meeting, Madam Chair. I'm not sure we're going to have it. If we don't, I would like to thank our joint chairs for the skillful way in which they have managed to arrive at consensus on all of the items we have had here at our committee. I want to thank you very much.

I also want to thank all the support staff. I want to express appreciation to counsel for all of their work and the advice they give us, which is usually very sound. I would like to also thank the other support staff we have here. I think this is a very good committee. I want to thank everybody in case we're not here again for another meeting.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Should we not be here again, and I'm sure there may be other members missing in this, but I particularly wanted to mention Mr. Breitkreuz, because I know he is not running for re-election. He has been a long-standing member and vice-chair on this committee, so thank you for all your work.

Mr. Vellacott and Mr. Anders have also been on this committee for quite some time. Thank you for all of your work and good luck to you in the future. Thanks very much for your service to this committee and to our country.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

(The committee adjourned.)

---