REGS Committee Meeting

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 16, 2016

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

Senator Pana Merchant and Mr. Harold Albrecht (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Good morning. I would like to welcome a colleague from the Senate. She has decided to join us. She gave us a test about two weeks ago, and she thought we were very interesting, so she is back.

Welcome, Senator Omidvar.

This morning, we also want to welcome our guest from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Veronica McGuire, Executive Director, Program, Regulatory and Trade Policy. We will try to take about an hour with questions. I hope if there are more questions you will be able to stay. Let us know.

Welcome. Please begin with your opening remarks.

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 6A:1. )

[Translation]

Veronica McGuire, Executive Director, Program, Regulatory and Trade Policy, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Madam Joint Chair, Mr. Joint Chair, good morning. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee's concerns this morning and to discuss how we can build a more solid and productive working relationship. The agency respects the work the committee does.

[English]

As you know, the CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency dedicated to safeguarding plants, animals and food. Our work promotes the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy.

We are aware of a number of issues that this committee has raised, including those specific to the current set of food- related regulations that are administered and enforced by the CFIA. These include, among other things, the misalignment between the English and French regulatory text.

While we appreciate the need to address these issues, it is important to embrace a broad view, recognizing that regulations need to keep pace with science, reflect international standards and respond to evolving business needs, like innovation. This is why the CFIA has such an ambitious agenda to modernize all of our regulatory frameworks, the centrepiece of which is the proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.

Let me explain further this morning by providing you with an update on how we are advancing the new regulations associated with the Safe Food for Canadians Act, legislation that was passed by Parliament in 2012. The CFIA expects that some longer-standing issues will be resolved through the making of these regulations. The Safe Food for Canadians Act modernizes Canada's food safety laws and replaces four statutes, some of which date back a number of decades.

The proposed regulations are tied to the CFIA's overall modernization strategy. Advancing modern regulations to support bringing the act fully into force is a key priority for our organization. This particular regulatory exercise is highly complex, to say the least. It's the largest undertaking of this type in the CFIA's history. Once adopted, the CFIA will be regulating a part of the food sector with which we have had limited interaction in the past.

Canada's food safety system continues to be recognized as one of the best in the world. Still, we are always working to improve our processes in light of new science and the changes we face due to today's changing and complex global marketplace. We need to support these changes with modern legislation and modern regulations.

The CFIA is committed to getting the proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations right, because they are going to be the basis on which we do business, and they will need to serve us well into the future. Once the regulations come into force, they will strengthen the CFIAs authority to do its job even better, with a consistent system that is focused more squarely on prevention.

Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, we originally anticipated having these regulations in place by 2015. We held three rounds of consultations on the regulatory framework for bringing the Safe Food for Canadians Act into force. Following consultations in 2013 and 2014, concerns were raised that small- and micro-sized businesses needed a stronger voice as to the proposed regulations and their impact on that sector.

To address those concerns, the CFIA conducted additional consultations with these groups. Over the summer of 2015, the CFIA engaged extensively with micro and small businesses to better understand the potential impact for these businesses.

The agency also released a complete draft version of proposed regulations. The comment period on the preliminary draft text closed less than year ago, on July 31, 2015. Altogether, more than 10,000 stakeholders were engaged and responded by sending in over 100 detailed submissions on the proposed regulations. While this extra level of consultation was indeed time consuming, it was also a central test that stakeholders be consulted meaningfully.

Modernizing Canada's food safety system is a significant undertaking that will impact all food commodities. That's why the CFIA has been taking the necessary time to make sure that the proposed regulations reflect the views and concerns of stakeholders.

[Translation]

I should point out that the agency has continued to work on modernization initiatives, mainly by creating a new integrated inspection model that sets out a standardized inspection process for all regulated products — foodstuffs, plants and animals — whether produced domestically, imported or exported.

Work is now under way on the regulations in preparation for their pre-publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette. We have a plan in place that we are following, all the while remaining flexible in order to respond to the government's priorities and timelines.

[English]

I know that this committee has other issues of concern, including an interest in fee remissions. I want to acknowledge that we take those issues seriously. Fee remissions can be granted under the Financial Administration Act, the FAA; or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, the CFIA Act. This means that both the Governor-in- Council under the FAA and the Minister of Health under the CFIA Act have the authority to grant fee remissions. We agree that Parliament envisioned that there would be circumstances in which the minister would use the authority given to him or her under the CFIA Act.

From a CFIA perspective, it would be reasonable for the minister to use his or her discretion to exercise the authority under the CFIA Act if circumstances were specific to the mandate of the minister. Similarly, where circumstances may have broader implications for the Government of Canada or the Canadian economy, it would be reasonable for the minister to use his or her discretion to recommend a remission of fees under the FAA.

Recognizing that both options exist, the agency agrees it is important to have clarity with respect to which authority to use in granting remissions.

To this end, the CFIA is developing a policy. We also recognize that this policy has been under development for some time. Work on the policy was temporarily suspended, as we focused effort on finalizing user fees for consultation.

The CFIA's user fees have not been updated in many years, and that is contributing to the need to grant remissions. As such, we turned our attention to efforts to developing a proposal to modernize the current user fee framework. We are planning to consult on our approach to modernizing user fees concurrently with the publication of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations in the Canada Gazette later this year.

With a plan established for consultation, we are now turning our attention to finalizing this policy. We anticipate the policy will be finalized before the end of 2016.

Moving forward, the CFIA commits to using its policy to provide advice to the minister to determine whether the FAA or the CFIA Act is best suited to address specific situations or circumstances.

[Translation]

Now I would like to turn to the correspondence issue. I appreciate having the opportunity to provide some clarification regarding the delays. It should be noted that we are continuing our efforts to rectify this matter, with a view to building a more harmonious working relationship with the committee going forward.

I recognize that the agency hasn't always responded to the committee's letters in a timely fashion and that we can do better. The agency intends to adopt a more rigorous approach to setting regulatory priorities and fulfilling them. Through our comprehensive approach, we are in the midst of setting up a new administrative oversight procedure specifically for the correspondence received from the committee. The procedure is designed to improve how the agency prioritizes, tracks and addresses committee correspondence. We will be implementing new service standards that will be subject to oversight.

In addition to this important step, we are committed to responding to the concerns raised by the committee in our review of required amendments to the regulatory frameworks applicable to the agency's animal health, plant protection and food safety business lines.

[English]

Our commitment to you is that the CFIA's first step will provide an immediate response acknowledging receipt of letters by electronic mail. The second step is responding in writing in a more timely manner, and we've been working diligently to bring the outstanding correspondence up to date. I am happy to report this morning that as of now there is very little outstanding correspondence.

The CFIA understands the benefit of working collaboratively with the committee, providing timely clarifications to committee questions regarding the technical or practical aspects of regulations, as well as informing the committee when regulations are published. We are acting on this understanding with the approaches that I have outlined this morning.

Thank you again for this opportunity to address this committee.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Joint Chair and Mr. Joint Chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Thank you very much.

I think you said that there were not that many outstanding files to which you have not corresponded. According to the information that we have, we have more active files with you than with any other agency. I believe we have some 38 active files, and some of these go back 20 years, so we're very concerned. That is why we have invited you. I'm sure that the members have questions to direct to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: My question is mainly about the legislation passed during the previous session of Parliament, the Safe Food for Canadians Act. As you know, the act replaces other legislation. According to past discussions, the legislation was supposed to be implemented sooner than expected, but that has yet to happen. What is your timetable, in terms of the implementation of the act and making of regulations by the Governor-in-Council?

Ms. McGuire: Under the new legislation, we anticipate the publication of the regulations this year.

[English]

Our expectation is that the new regulations under the legislation will be published in the Canada Gazette for further consultation with stakeholders in the fall of this year.

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: If I understand correctly, you have already conducted consultations leading up to the publication of the regulations in Part I of the Canada Gazette. You will then undertake further consultations. You expect the process to be quick, despite how long the previous round of consultations and the consultations further to the publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette took. When do you anticipate publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette?

Ms. McGuire: As for Part II, we anticipate publishing the decisions in 2017. We have already undertaken extensive consultations.

[English]

We have conducted unprecedented pre-consultation on the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. As was pointed out, there will be more formal consultation as we publish regulations in Part I of the Canada Gazette.

We do expect to get significant feedback from stakeholders. We expect that feedback will be from domestic parties but also international partners. So our plan is to have the capacity in place to analyze the feedback received as a result of Canada Gazette I publication to move fairly expeditiously to Canada Gazette II before the end of 2017. It will be an intensive period given our expectation of the number of comments and feedback that we expect from stakeholders.

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: Thank you for your answers. We'll keep a close eye on this file to make sure the work is done in a timely fashion. Since most of the regulations to be made will be replacing existing regulations that are currently at issue, do you expect that the new regulations will solve many of the problems your agency has been dealing with in recent years?

Ms. McGuire: Yes, definitely. The new regulations will replace 13 existing regulations.

[English]

It is our expectation that many of the issues that have been identified by the committee over past years with respect to the existing set of regulations will be addressed as we bring the new regulations on stream.

Mr. Brassard: Thank you for coming this morning. My question is specific to your comments about administrative process. You mentioned that you are engaging in a new administrative process to sort, monitor and follow up and that you are committed to the committee.

Well, this action actually was to have happened in 2011 because, at that time, it was indicated the new procedures had been instituted to better suit the committee's requirement. What are you going to do differently now than you did in 2011 to ensure that the committee's work and relationship with the agency can be better?

Ms. McGuire: In recent weeks we have implemented new processes that we believe will address some of the process challenges that we have faced previously. I can give you every assurance that we have developed new standard operating procedures. We are putting those in place, and we are also introducing a number of steps, including service standards, in terms of the timing of responses to the committee. We are building more checks and balances into our process to help ensure that we respond on a more timely basis than has previously been the case. We certainly recognize that there is room for improvement, and we are making those improvements.

Mr. Brassard: Thank you. The committee certainly recognizes that there is room for improvement. I am hopeful that whatever process you institute at this point will be better than the previous process implemented in 2011. I'm sure committee members will agree with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Di Iorio: Ms. McGuire, thank you for your presentation and your thoughtfulness towards the concerns raised in the correspondence and the notice further to which you were asked to appear this morning.

I also appreciate the list of measures you outlined for us this morning; time will tell whether they are adequate or whether further refinement is necessary. It's a collaborative exercise we can work on together.

But there is something we need from you. Beyond the measures you intend to put in place, other equally important measures are needed, those you are implementing to — and the wording is very important — make sure the mechanisms you develop are indeed respected. It's one thing to present them to the committee, and they are certainly appreciated, but it's another thing to make sure they are doing the job day in and day out.

Given, then, your level of expertise and experience, I would like you to reassure us that you will make sure the mechanisms are appropriate and that the entire system is doing what it should.

Ms. McGuire: On top of the new procedures we are in the process of implementing, oversight will be carried out by the agency's senior management.

[English]

I can give you every assurance that our senior management team at the CFIA is also aware of and sensitive to the need to respond on a timely basis and that we will be expected to report through agency mechanisms the extent to which the new procedures are working and achieving the objectives that we've set out.

We will monitor their implementation closely to ensure they are effective and achieve the intended outcomes. If further refinements need to be made, we will make those. It is part of my accountability, not only to this committee but also to the senior leaders at the CFIA, to ensure that our processes, including the one we're talking about this morning, are effective and achieve the identified outcomes.

We, like you, are looking to have a productive, collaborative relationship with the committee. Certainly, we are open to working with colleagues if we might make further improvements at the agency to ensure that we meet your expectations and that the processes are working as they have been designed.

We have looked at best practices. We are adopting those in the context of our procedures for responding to committee concerns. My view is that they will go a long way to improving our performance with respect to correspondence.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): I'm sure you are aware that the committee has found in the past that they had to send several reminders and there was never a response. I do hope that our relationship will improve. As I said, some of the files go back 20 years. We are serious about improving the situation between us.

Ms. McGuire: Understood.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): You may be new at this; and I'm sure you haven't been there for 20 years.

Ms. McGuire: No, not quite 20 years. Certainly I agree and I know I have the full support of the agency's senior management that improvements are needed, and we are making those improvements.

Mr. Kmiec: Has the minister been briefed on all of the delays?

Ms. McGuire: The minister's office is aware of our appearance this morning.

Mr. Kmiec: I'm asking about the delays going back as far as 1992. Has the minister received a briefing in writing on how many outstanding regulations are to be fixed?

Ms. McGuire: Not specifically on the issues raised by the committee. Certainly, ministers are made aware of our regulatory plan and the areas we are targeting for reform and the timing of those regulatory changes.

Mr. Kmiec: I'm looking at one of the files. The issue was raised in 1992 about the Plant Breeders Rights Act. Section 4 of the regulation needs to be removed. As far as we can tell, it has never been removed. Multiple letters have gone unanswered on this particular one. The issue isn't so much that the CFIA has a large workload; it's that they can't get it right. They have mistakes that need to be fixed. The committee is flagging them and it is cumulative over time.

Today, all businesses and offices have email. Processes and procedures are in place in the private sector and in all of our offices. We institute them to process correspondence from our constituents. I find it hard to believe that the CFIA didn't get it right. In 2011, you also had process changes. I would like you to explain to the committee what process changes you are introducing now. Are they people or process changes? Do you have a tracking system for correspondence received? Are you changing the people monitoring the programs? Are you introducing new programs? I want more assurances of what is being done so this committee actually hears it, as opposed to hearing that everything will be fixed, as this committee heard in 2011. Otherwise, we will back here in 2019 and will have 30 outstanding regulations and someone else will come here tell us that it's okay, they're about to fix it again.

Ms. McGuire: The measures we are putting in place are a mix of approaches. Yes, they involve new staff. They also entail more elaborate written procedures and follow-up mechanisms so that we put in place process changes that are sustainable and effective over the long term.

We are adopting a mix of approaches and considering best practices that we can incorporate and embed into our day-to-day business. We do not see this as an aside but as part of the overall plan to make process improvements in the team responsible. We are articulating those roles and responsibilities extremely clearly so that individuals and teams have a full understanding of the expectations, accountabilities and consequences of not fulfilling those expectations.

I believe that the measures we have adopted in recent weeks and will continue to refine and monitor will make a significant difference. I can tell you that I will be asking for progress reports from my team at CFIA to ensure that the process improvements are working as designed and achieving results.

On the question of regulations and the pace at which regulatory changes are made, we do acknowledge that the regulatory process is complex and a lengthy one. We now have a plan where we've identified key regulatory priorities that the CFIA is proposing to deliver over the next two years. The timing of some of those regulations is outside of our control. We have a plan, and we're executing the plan. Decisions with respect to when a regulatory proposal is published in the Canada Gazette reside with ministers of the government. We certainly, as officials and regulatory experts, make recommendations. Our hope is always that those recommendations will be endorsed by decision makers, but there are a number of elements in the process of regulation making that are outside of our control.

For example, if I may just elaborate, as to the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, as we've discussed, we are proposing to publish those regulations in Part I of the Canada Gazette before the end of this calendar year. That's our plan and that would be our recommendation to ministers. Whether that timing, in the end, materializes is not a consideration over which the CFIA has direct control.

Senator Moore: Thank you, Ms. McGuire, for being here.

In your brief, you say that you are happy to report that as of this week there is little outstanding correspondence. We just heard that there are 38 active files. So what do you consider to be "little''?

Ms. McGuire: I don't have a number to target in terms of the number of files. I think, as a general principle, we would hope to have as few files as possible. It is in our interest to have regulations that are well developed and are clear and consistent, whether you are reading the regulations in English or in French.

Senator Moore: We obviously don't think that 38 is "little.'' Did you write your brief this morning that you presented? Did you write this?

Ms. McGuire: I had a hand in writing it, yes.

Senator Moore: Was whoever wrote that sentence aware that there were 38 active files outstanding? Did you write that phrase, or did somebody in your office write that?

Ms. McGuire: I believe you're referring to the phrase that we have "little outstanding correspondence.''

Senator Moore: Yes, you say, in your remarks, "as of this week.''

Ms. McGuire: Perhaps I can clarify.

When we refer to outstanding files, what we are communicating is that we have responded to letters that we had previously not responded to. So we are dealing with letters for which responses had not yet been received from the CFIA. I didn't mean to suggest that all of the regulatory issues that have been identified have been resolved. There will be further work needed in order to address the substance of the regulatory issues that have been identified by the committee.

Senator Moore: Okay. That's not much of an answer.

I think you must have the feeling that the committee thinks that 38 is a lot. In fact, nine letters have not even been responded to, not even a letter like, "Thanks, I got your note and will be back to you in a week.'' I think it's bloody discourteous. You are a professional. You are paid by the taxpayers to get back to people, and you can't even get back and say, "I got your letter. We're jammed, but I'll be back to you within a week,'' or something.

When a letter comes from this committee, who gets it? Who is responsible for answering it? Does somebody then vet that answer, or does it come directly back to our joint chairs or to our legal counsel? What is happening today? How do we get behind by 38 files, 9 unanswered to date, not even a "Thanks, I got your letter''? What is the process? What has been happening?

Ms. McGuire: I certainly agree that it's not acceptable not to answer correspondence and certainly that includes any correspondence that we receive from this committee. We are putting in place new procedures and measures so that these types of situations don't occur in the future. We believe it is important to quickly acknowledge receipt of letters from the committee and to give you every assurance that we are looking into the matters raised by the committee, and we're also undertaking to provide a more fulsome response within a six-week period. There may be exceptions to that six-week service standard if the issues are particularly complex and further consultation or analysis is required by agency experts.

Senator Moore: So when a letter comes to your office, do you get it?

Ms. McGuire: Yes, I do.

Senator Moore: When you get that letter from our joint chairs or from our legal counsel, what do you do with it?

Ms. McGuire: When I receive the letter, I ask my staff to prepare a response for my signature.

Senator Moore: How do we have nine unanswered? Not even responded to, not even a courtesy, "Thanks; I got your note.'' How do we have that? Did you not get those nine letters?

Ms. McGuire: We did have a period of time where correspondence from this committee was not reaching my desk. We have looked into that. It was for a limited period of time. We have done a diagnostic as to why that might be the case, and, again, we are putting in measures to ensure that these types of situations don't occur in the future.

Senator Moore: They are not acceptable, Ms. McGuire, and you must agree with that.

Ms. McGuire: I do agree, senator.

Senator Moore: Do you ever pick up the phone and call the counsel and say, "I got your note; we're on it''? Do you ever do that?

Ms. McGuire: We did so when it came to my attention that there had been a number of letters outstanding for some time to which the agency had not responded. That was certainly unusual, not our practice, and we took action immediately to address those circumstances.

Senator Moore: I'm happy to hear of a new maximum six-week response period. That's a huge improvement over what we have been experiencing, and I would ask that you put some priority on cleaning up the existing 38 files.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): I think, Ms. McGuire, you can sense the level of frustration that our committee has been dealing with for some time. To get the summary of the 38 files we have in front of us — I'm not sure if you have that summary — it's really disappointing when you see 38 files and, within those files, you see some with 20 and one with 89 outstanding points. This is a huge backlog of regulatory change.

Even in the briefing notes we received, it appears like your agency had to contact our secretariat to see exactly which files were still outstanding. That is troubling to me as a committee member who has been elected by the people of Canada to represent them and assure them that our laws are in place and that the regulatory system is up to date.

On one level, it is frustrating not to be able to do our job, but I would think a bigger concern would be confusion among the stakeholders who are depending on up-to-date regulations, as to which regulation is in place and when they can expect the new one.

So I do hope that after the frustration you've sensed today, there will be concerted effort to improve this. You can be assured that this committee will be looking closely at it and supporting the work of our counsel. I want to highlight the good work of our counsel in keeping on top of this, because we as individual committee members would never have the time to look at each of these files.

I trust that we can count on your assurance that this will be changed. It is one thing to receive an assurance that you will reply to it, but unless the amendment is actually made, here we are, spinning our wheels week after week, year after year.

Ms. McGuire: I agree there needs to be a concerted effort, and we're certainly committed to making that effort.

I also agree that having procedures on paper is one thing, but what really counts is the implementation. We will be monitoring the implementation very closely. It may not be perfect, but if we encounter some recurring difficulties or issues, we will be much better positioned to address those on a timely basis.

We are happy to cultivate our relationship with counsel, to work in a collaborative and productive manner.

It is true that some of the issues that have been identified are long-standing ones. We, at the agency, also are very committed and eager to have regulations put in place that are reflective of today's reality and evolving science.

The Safe Food for Canadians Regulations is our highest priority. Those regulations are more complex than any regulatory change we have ever undertaken. They will replace 13 sets of existing regulations and address a number of long-standing issues for this committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): Do you have the summary that we as committee members received of the 38 outstanding files?

Ms. McGuire: I don't have it in front of me.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): I would hope this would be a starting point for you to go back and take a look.

Ms. McGuire: Absolutely.

Mr. Brassard: As much as you are going to be monitoring closely the impact of these procedural changes, so too will this committee, because if we do not see any action, you will be back in that chair. You can sense the frustration of the committee members.

In the context of some of the discussion, I want to follow up on a point that Mr. Kmiec made. How long have you been with the agency now?

Ms. McGuire: Almost eight years, in different capacities.

Mr. Brassard: I assume you would have been briefed as to the outstanding issues with respect to the dealings of this committee at some point over those eight years, correct?

Ms. McGuire: Yes.

Mr. Brassard: What action would you have taken once you were briefed on those issues?

Ms. McGuire: I have been in this particular position for three years. As mentioned, I have direct oversight over the correspondence and some of the issues.

We are working with our experts at the agency in plant health and animal health, as well as food safety. We have a partnership whereby we bring to the attention of our program experts some of the technical or practical aspects in the regulations that have been raised as concerns.

We also follow up to help ensure that as we move forward with regulatory reforms, the issues are addressed as part of the overall regulatory proposal. The agency has adopted an approach to regulatory reform that rather than pursue regulatory reforms to address one or two issues, we deliberately made a decision to update regulatory frameworks as a whole. As I mentioned, we are doing that in the context of our food program to reflect the provisions of the new legislation.

We are adopting or have adopted a similar approach for other programs. Feed regulatory renewal is one of our priorities for next calendar year, as is fertilizer regulatory modernization.

In the context of those regulatory proposals, we work in partnership with experts at the agency to ensure awareness of the issues that have been raised by this committee and to work collaboratively to ensure, as much as possible, that the issues are addressed as we move forward with our regulatory reforms.

Mr. Brassard: Thank you for that.

How many employees do you have under your direction right now?

Ms. McGuire: I have several responsibilities, one of which is the regulatory oversight group at the CFIA. If memory serves, it's fewer than 15 people.

Mr. Brassard: You mentioned in your comments to the answer to Mr. Kmiec that you will be directing new staff to the procedural enhancements you are making with respect to the dealings of the committee. Are these existing staff that will be directed to this problem, or are you planning on hiring new staff for this?

Ms. McGuire: It's a combination. We have newly appointed staff at the management level in the regulatory group. Some of those individuals have extensive agency experience that I consider an asset. But we are also building our capacity. Our plan is to hire more regulatory analysts, not necessarily from the agency but individuals who bring expertise into the regulatory oversight process.

Mr. Brassard: One of the challenges that you've heard this morning is the correspondence in dealing with the committee. Can I ask, then, whether a similar circumstance exists? This is a joint parliamentary committee, duly constituted by the Parliament Act of Canada. If we're having this much trouble getting information from the agency, how much trouble is had by stakeholders or those with an interest in dealing with the agency in getting information?

Ms. McGuire: I'm not aware of any specific difficulties that stakeholders may be encountering in getting information from the agency. We have a number of mechanisms to proactively share information on regulations with stakeholders. More and more, we're devoting attention to compliance promotion so that stakeholders understand the requirements under the regulations. And we're setting up new and more efficient systems to enable easy access by stakeholders into the agency.

Some of the principles we've talked about this morning also apply to those processes: for example, service standards, quick acknowledgment and assurance that the agency has received the inquiry and that we're acting on it.

We also have a very extensive network of area offices across the country. Typically our front-line staff work closely with stakeholders on the ground and are in a position to address specific questions. Broader policy issues would typically be redirected to our headquarters in Ottawa for further consideration.

Mr. Brassard: Thank you, Ms. McGuire.

Mr. El-Khoury: Ms. McGuire, welcome to this committee.

I'm sorry to say it puzzled me a bit when you said some of the correspondence did not reach your desk. Is there any reason? According to you, was that done intentionally or irresponsibly? If that is repeated, how can you assure this committee that some responsible action will be taken?

Ms. McGuire: I have no evidence to suggest that there was any intent or any misstep with respect to correspondence that was sent by the committee, that we know of and have confirmed, but somehow it didn't reach my desk.

We did a diagnostic to try to identify the root cause, and it appears that it was a mix of considerations. There wasn't a single factor that caused the process deficiency.

Moving forward, we want to ensure that we guard against that possibility occurring again. It is unusual. It is not satisfactory from an agency perspective, and we need to ensure that these types of circumstances don't arise in the future. Hence, from our perspective, it's useful to continue to work with legal counsel to ensure that we have a full inventory of the issues and we're addressing them and getting back to you on a timely basis.

Mr. Kmiec: I'm going to follow up on something. You have mentioned twice that you had done a diagnostic and you mentioned having identified the root cause. Can you table with this committee the diagnostic that you did?

Ms. McGuire: I can get back to you on that with the process that we undertook to look into the issue.

Mr. Kmiec: You can't table the diagnostic?

Ms. McGuire: I'm not in a position to give you that commitment this morning.

Mr. Kmiec: If this Scrutiny of Regulations Joint Committee is having so much difficulty with this, you obviously also deal with the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons as well. Do they also have these types of issues getting answers out of CFIA?

Ms. McGuire: We deal with the Agriculture Committee and we also deal with the Health Committee, given that the Minister of Health has overall responsibility for the CFIA. I'm not aware of any challenges associated with those committees. Our experience is that those committees will call CFIA witnesses on a periodic basis, depending on the particular issues being considered by those committees.

Mr. Kmiec: There are over 30 regulations here on which different stakeholders would have been either making business decisions or waiting to make business decisions, and some of these files have been outstanding for 20 years. One of these regulations has 40 points remaining outstanding, including one amending the Fish Inspection Regulations that has been outstanding for a long time.

You did mention the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which was passed in 2012 and on which you would be moving on first and developing these policy frameworks. In your relationship with these stakeholders and how they're being dealt with or responded to, to pick up on Mr. Brassard's point, would you be able to table with this committee a list of the stakeholders you have been dealing with on these regulations, and the principals that your office has been dealing with?

Ms. McGuire: We would have to consult with the stakeholders who have been consulted on the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.

To help clarify, the scope of the regulations, once on stream, the Safe Food for Canadians regulations will replace a number of existing regulations, including the ones that currently exist under the Fish Inspection Act. With implementation of the regulations, the new legislation is fully in force. The Fish Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act and other statutes will no longer apply and neither will the regulations made under those statutes.

Mr. Kmiec: I have a question for counsel. Maybe it's a procedural matter. Does a parliamentary committee have the power to compel a document out of a government agency?

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: Yes.

Mr. Kmiec: So the diagnostic that I've been asking for, which Ms. McGuire has been telling us she is unable to produce, can we compel the production of a document?

Mr. Bernhardt: It is for the committee to decide the papers and persons it wishes to require the production of.

Mr. Kmiec: It would be to satisfy the question of why they have been delaying this. If they know why there has been a delay, then why can't we find out the cause of this 20-year delay? This has been multiple governments, not just Liberal or Conservative. It has been a series of things. Scrutiny of Regulations may not rank highly amongst the committees here, but it has been 20 years and I think both our sides are owed an answer on what has been going on. If they know, I would like to move a motion that this document be produced and sent through counsel to be distributed to committee members.

Mr. Bernhardt: I think members should keep in mind that sometimes public servants are placed in a difficult situation when asked to produce internal documents. There may be issues there. If what the committee is looking for is a detailed explanation, as an alternative to looking for the actual document, perhaps it can ask for that.

Mr. Kmiec: I just worry it might be 20 years before we get that explanation.

Mr. Bernhardt: Procedurally, there is nothing preventing the committee from requiring the production of a particular document from anyone.

Mr. Kmiec: It was a diagnostic on the returning of letters. I would like to move a motion for that document to be produced.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Ms. McGuire, were you going to say something?

Ms. McGuire: A point of clarification: When I was referring to a diagnostic, the scope was limited and one was done recently to explore why correspondence that had been sent by the committee was not reaching my desk. So it really is on the process issues that we've discussed this morning. I didn't want to leave you with the understanding that it's a broader piece.

Senator Moore: Was this diagnostic effort verbal or in writing?

Ms. McGuire: I was briefed verbally on what transpired and I had questions for which I was looking for answers.

Senator Moore: Did you get a written diagnostic report from your staff, or did you just get a verbal briefing?

Ms. McGuire: What I did get are new standard operating procedures, and that is a document that I have on hand. It outlines how we will move forward and ensure that correspondence is addressed more effectively and more swiftly than in the past.

Senator Moore: Was it focused on the inquiries and correspondence with this committee, or was there just a general policy thing about "correspondence might come in''?

Ms. McGuire: It is focused on the correspondence of this committee. It specifically targets some of the issues that came to my attention in recent weeks.

Senator Moore: So you do have something in writing that you can submit to the committee?

Ms. McGuire: Indeed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): We will request that they —

Mr. Di Iorio: Can I make a suggestion? I'm sensitive to the argument that learned counsel made: We don't want civil servants to say, "We aren't going to put anything in writing because they might be asking for these documents.'' But, at the same time, the argument made by my learned colleague is very appropriate.

I would suggest that Mr. Kmiec, Senator Moore and counsel take a look at it and make a determination whether we should all have access to the document. That way, if there is information that might be sensitive — I will give you an example. Let's say the witness recommended in the document that someone be disciplined. Do we need to make that information public? It would hinder future efforts to address such issues because people in positions of authority would be reluctant to put any suggestion in a document, because it might be disclosed publicly.

We should be prudent. I would trust my colleagues here and counsel to take an in camera approach, for their eyes only. I would trust their judgment as to the subsequent steps.

Mr. Bernhardt: As another possibility, perhaps to avoid the situation of placing public servants in untenable situations, I wonder if the committee could write to the minister directly and ask the minister for that detailed explanation. In a sense, that avoids putting an official in the hot seat, for lack of a better word.

Mr. Di Iorio: The objective is not to hinder any future action. The past is the past; we can't change the past. But as Mr. Kmiec and Mr. Brassard indicated, we want to ensure this does not happen again. Mr. Brassard very eloquently told Ms. McGuire that we want to make sure she never comes back to that chair again, so those are the measures.

We take note that there is a document, but maybe we should write to the minister directly and attract his attention. Then, if need be, questions can be asked of him in the house.

Mr. Kmiec: The one issue with that is that the minister will receive the letter and it will be directed to a department official to draft a piece of correspondence to reply for the minister to sign off on. Typically that's how it would work. It would probably go to the agency to answer why.

If Senator Moore is okay with it, I like the idea for just the two of us to look at the document and not place any public servants in a difficult position. I used to be registrar for the human resources profession in the province of Alberta before being elected. If there are HR sensitivities here, I'm fine looking at them and reporting back to the committee. We can do it in camera, as well. That's another way: It can be brought to our attention in camera, so it is not on the public record. Then we, as committee members, will know what is going on.

Mr. Di Iorio: I will be comfortable with you, Senator Moore and counsel. Then, if you need guidance, counsel would be present. That would be sufficient.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): All right. I think it's almost time to wrap up.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): One of the suggestions I would make is that because of the summary of the 38 files that we have from our counsel with multiple points in each of them, perhaps we could have a report of all of these files at our second meeting when we return in September, along with a commitment from the agency that they will file with us the policy relating to the fee questions between the Financial Administration Act and the CFIA Act. We ought to have that policy in hand by the second meeting when we return in the fall. It would probably be early October.

Would the committee think that's a reasonable way to proceed, that through counsel to the committee we have an update on all these files by CFIA? In addition, we would have the actual policy on file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Thank you very much. As you see, there is a lot of frustration here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): To clarify: I think Mr. Kmiec had a motion on the floor.

Mr. Di Iorio: If we have an undertaking from the witness, I don't think we need a motion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): Do it by consensus?

Ms. McGuire: The procedural document. Yes, absolutely.

Senator Moore: When will Ms. McGuire deliver that to counsel?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): Prior to our September meeting.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Agreed, Ms. McGuire?

Ms. McGuire: Absolutely. We will provide you with our procedural document, and we will also be pleased to provide an update at your fall meeting with respect to the development of the policy on fee remissions.

I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with you this morning. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Thank you.

We will go to Item 2 on our agenda, "Recommendations from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.'' We met four weeks ago.

Can counsel go through this, item by item?

Mr. Bernhardt: We can.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Does anybody have questions or comments?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): We are on Item 2.

Mr. Bernhardt: I'll first speak to Item 1, if I may. The one issue that occurred to us since the steering committee meeting was the question of what would happen during the summer recess or periods of lengthy adjournment. The idea is that if there is no response within four months, the chairs would write to the appropriate minister. We'll have situations, for example, where those four months run out in the middle or end of July. Obviously it's not impossible to draft a letter and get the joint chairs' signatures; however, it may be more difficult, and it may not be desirable to simply put off following that up until the committee comes back say at the end of September.

There is mention in here of giving counsel discretion to make exceptions to the four-month rule where the number or complexity of issues would require a longer time. Perhaps members might want to consider including something there about also taking into account the parliamentary calendar, just to deal with those situations.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): That would make sense.

Mr. Bernhardt: Simply say "wherever the complexity of the issue requires a longer response time,'' "Parliament is adjourned'' or "taking into account the parliamentary calendar'' or something like.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Did anybody have any questions?

Senator Moore: I just want to go back. Ms. McGuire didn't have the 38-point briefing note, and her minister is not aware of it. Counsel, I think you said you are going to send a copy of that to Ms. McGuire. I would copy the minister as well on that 38-point brief. It may help light a fire.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): Do we want to go to Item 2, the recommended procedures, or are we all good?

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Do members want to go through the recommended procedures one by one?

Do we look at the recommended procedures, or are you happy to read them yourselves? Do you have any questions of us or Mr. Bernhardt? These are the general rules that we were going to proceed by. You had asked us to get together with Mr. Bernhardt, and that's what we did. Are you good with it?

Senator Omidvar: I'm sensitive to what I heard earlier about the issue of protecting civil servants where appropriate. This is a draft report on agenda and procedure. Could we build in a consideration about, where appropriate, protecting issues of confidentiality relating to civil service performance?

Mr. Kmiec: I want to make a point on that. What we were trying to protect before were issues of performance management of civil servants, but there should be no confidentiality on the part of this committee because we are doing work on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, and the agencies of the government are responsible to us and to give us answers. As long as we have wording that is very specific to issues of performance management or whether someone would be terminated for poor work performance by an agency or a manager in an agency, it should be limited to that, and not to some agency claiming confidentiality or privacy. There should be no such thing with regard to a committee of Parliament.

Senator Omidvar: I agree, but I'm really quite sensitive to that point. You've agreed to go in camera on that document and I think that may well come up again.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: I have no objection. I'm trying to see where we would put it in.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): Can you suggest where we should insert it?

Senator Omidvar: As the last point; point number 9.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): I will suggest that we adopt it as is and possibly come back with an amendment if you have specific wording we could add later. Otherwise we will get bogged down in procedural things, here.

Senator Omidvar: I'm not ready to suggest specific wording at this point. I want to leave that up to counsel.

Mr. Brassard: Counsel, with respect to point number 2 and disallowance, historically, how often has the committee issued a disallowance on some of the regulations? I think we have to be careful not to continually threaten disallowance and then have it lose its effectiveness. In the past, how often have we done that?

Mr. Bernhardt: There have been 11 occasions of disallowance by the committee, and in 8 of those the disallowance went ahead and the regulations were revoked. Regarding the very first disallowance, back in the late 1980s, there was some confusion because it had never been done before on the floor of the house, and it got sent back to the committee for procedural reasons. The last two disallowances were also referred back to the committee. Legislation was introduced to solve the problem and because of that the disallowance didn't proceed.

Mr. Brassard: In your experience, Mr. Bernhardt, has the consideration of disallowance acted as a measure to encourage action on the part of any issue that remains outstanding?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think so, in some cases. In the last instance, or the instance before the last, when the disallowance was tabled the government introduced a bill that would solve the problem. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper, but at that point there was clearly seen to be no need to proceed with disallowance since there was a bill in Parliament.

Mr. Brassard: I just wanted clarification on that. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): That was item 3. Are we on four, now?

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: Could we go back to item 2, the recommendations submitted by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure? I noticed that some people were not entirely comfortable with the current wording of the text, so I would recommend that those interested in doing so submit proposed amendments to the clerk for discussion at a future meeting.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Are we back on recommendations?

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: I believe somewhat of an agreement on the matter existed previously, unless the document has already been adopted as is. If not, we could revisit the matter and discuss any amendments proposed by those having trouble with some of the wording and put them to a vote.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Do you want to come back to them in the fall?

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: At the next opportunity. If the next meeting is in the fall, yes. That will give committee members the time they need to do a more thorough analysis and propose any necessary changes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Is the committee in agreement? Yes? Agreed.

[English]

SOR/2006-124 — PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 6B:1. )

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Now we will deal with Item No. 3 on our agenda, the Pest Control Products Regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: Back on May 5, the committee decided to issue a notice of disallowance with respect to subparagraph 26(1)(h)(i), paragraph 26(2)(g) and sub-item 1(a) of the table to section 6 of Schedule 2 of the Pest Control Products Regulations.

Two of these provisions require a guarantee statement consisting of the word "guarantee'' followed by the common chemical name of the product's active ingredient and the concentration of that ingredient.

While the requirement to indicate the name and concentration of a product on a label may serve a valid purpose, the requirement to state it's a guarantee does not. It does not indicate an actual guarantee to a consumer since the statement is merely a requirement for the registration of the product. There is no actual provision requiring that a guarantee be given and there is no authority to make regulations, creating a cause of action between private parties. In this regard the requirement is both misleading and unnecessary.

The third provision sets out a notice that has to be provided on the secondary display panel of a registered pest control product, and the final sentence of this notice is supposed to state that the user of the product assumes the risk to persons or property that arises from a use inconsistent with the instructions.

Even if this is supposed to be a warning, at the very least it purports to set out a conclusion with respect to common law principles concerning liability and could be interpreted as imposing civil liability on the user of a product, and it is doubtful that requiring persons to provide warnings governing civil liability is even authorized by the act.

Under the Statutory Instruments Act the responsible minister has to be given 30 days' notice before a disallowance report can be adopted. That period has now run, although I would point out that simply because a notice has been issued and the period has run, it does not oblige the committee to proceed with a report. In any event, the file was brought back to the committee because the 30 days is now expired. There is also a draft disallowance report there, if only so members can see what form that report would take.

Health Canada has responded, following the serving of the notice of disallowance. It has advanced its timeline for removing these objectionable provisions, which were first drawn to their attention in 2008. It now expects prepublication of proposed amendments this fall, with final publication to take place in the spring or summer of 2017.

It concludes its letter by saying that should this timeline not be acceptable to the committee, the department would like the committee's views on how best to resolve these matters without a disallowance report.

As a final note, it might be worth keeping in mind that a disallowance report, if it is adopted and tabled in the houses, is then deemed adopted in the houses 15 sitting days after it's tabled in the absence of a request for a debate. Practically, then, even if the disallowance report was adopted at this point, the department would still have until the fall to actually make the amendments to the regulations. I put that out as something that might be an additional consideration.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): I would say leave it as it is until the fall.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Yes.

What about the other items here?

Mr. Bernhardt: I'm a little unclear on what the committee wants done.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): I think the agreement was that we would wait until the fall to see if action had, in fact, been taken.

Mr. Bernhardt: So as long as they are prepublished in the fall, the committee is happy with that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Yes, that was what was said.

Mr. Kmiec: I think this is one of those situations where the notice of disallowance actually served its purpose and shook the tree, and they did what we were asking them to do.

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

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Next is Item 4 on our agenda, Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.

Mr. Bernhardt: This file is back for discussion following the appearance of witnesses at the last meeting. I can, if members wish, walk through the issues and what the committee heard and refresh everyone's mind.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Do we need that? We had the witnesses here.

Mr. Kmiec: I don't think we need a refresher on the effluent issue.

I commend legal counsel on the note that was written. I compared it to my notes from when Mr. Moffet was here for his presentation, and this is a fulsome dissertation on everything that is wrong in what they had explained. It was a bizarre presentation because I thought we were going in circles in trying to explain that 36(3) is very broad and that they are using their personal interpretation of how they should be applying it. I think that that regulation is a perfect example where a notice of disallowance might lead to what we want, might actually gain us. However, I don't want to move in that direction just yet because when I looked at the transcript from that committee meeting, a motion was moved to call the Department of Environment and Climate Change officials and the minister. I moved the motion. I think it's a situation where, if the minister actually understood what the department is saying, I'm convinced that she would see reason and common sense, that this is simply not what Parliament had intended to do, to provide officials with such mass administrative power. It undermines the rule of law that officials can decide when and how the law will apply and to whom it will apply. The specific regulation affecting pulp mills has nothing to do with protecting the environment. It has everything to do with satisfying officials in the department that they are tracking all of these mills. The act is interested not in tracking the mills but in protecting the environment.

I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understood it, adding a deleterious substance to the water is the "act'' that the act is trying to regulate, not the water being moved around. That's a key point, and counsel laid it out here as well. I would like this to go to the minister.

I want clarification from counsel. Did we send the minister a letter requesting that the minister appear as a witness?

Mr. Bernhardt: The invitation, I believe, was sent to Mr. Moffet, indicating that the committee wished officials to appear and the minister to appear, if available.

Mr. Kmiec: If the minister is not available, is there a deputy minister available? I refuse to believe that there is not one official there in the higher chain who is reasonable and can see common sense and has a better legal background. This is a perfect case of government officials going too far. If there were a case, this would be it.

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: I see that I was faster than Mr. Kmiec at moving a disallowance motion. But I would be amenable to another step prior to that. Since the minister wasn't available when she was invited with Mr. Moffet, I think we could simply send an invitation to appear directly to her. I am prepared to agree to that additional step, but we are clearly moving towards the possibility of exercising our authority to recommend disallowance regarding these regulations and essentially do the same thing we just talked about in relation to item 3.

[English]

Mr. Di Iorio: Going back to what Mr. Dusseault pointed out, I have to express my entire dissatisfaction with the presentation that was made to us. I don't consider that an appropriate way to address a committee comprising elected officials and senators that are appointed under the Constitution of this country. It is no way to come here and to say, "By the way, you guys have it all wrong; we have it right, and that's it.'' It's argumentative, and it's not what we purported to achieve. We wanted to find a solution.

I have to agree entirely also with Mr. Kmiec when he commends the summary that was prepared by our learned counsel. I have been a law professor for many years, and I put to task some of my colleagues to be able to come up with such fine work. It is impeccable and worth mentioning.

My disappointment comes not only from the attitude that we observed, which was not appropriate. We have to mention it and make sure it is known. The individual who came here has superiors, and his superiors have to be made aware that we are extremely dissatisfied with the treatment, the behaviour and lack of proper manners that were displayed during the testimony. It's no way to come here. We all get up in the morning. We try to do our best and we try to accomplish something. We were attempting to accomplish something, and nothing was accomplished.

To say, "No, no, every letter was responded to; we replied to every letter,'' I do not consider it a reply when somebody says, "Yeah, I got your letter. Maybe someday, whatever, leave me alone.'' That's not a way to respond. I'm being a bit farcical, but I was, I would say, almost outraged at the content and the manner in which it was expressed. So we have to do something. This has been an item that has been there. It is a serious matter. It involves individuals who have to determine their rights and obligations, and they have to be addressed.

How do we do it? We could call the minister if we want. I haven't been here long enough to know whether that would really resolve the issue. If that really resolved the issue, I wouldn't mind doing it. I would like to have somebody in a position of authority come here and to say, "Originally, an individual came here to address one problem. Now, the other person has to come here to address two problems: the attitude and behaviour of the first individual and the substance of the problem for which that person was here.'' We're going to be calling witnesses more than has been done in the past, and we don't want to be treated that way. We want to send a strong signal that we are not going to accept it.

Mr. Kmiec: I'm satisfied with that interpretation.

Mr. Bernhardt: Certainly the committee can write to the minister and convey that message and that in light of the committee's dissatisfaction with the previous witnesses, it would invite the minister to come. I assume that if the minister is not available, they will suggest someone else. Given the committee's expressed dissatisfaction, I assume it would be someone other than Mr. Moffet again. The committee would go from there I suppose.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): Is it possible to telegraph in that letter the fact that we are seriously considering disallowance?

Mr. Bernhardt: If that's what the members wish, it can be mentioned as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Dusseault: I propose that the committee be flexible in choosing a date to hear from the minister, instead of just blocking off time during its usual Thursday morning meeting for the minister's appearance. We should demonstrate that the committee is willing to schedule another date to hear from the minister when she is available. That way, she would have a hard time turning down the invitation on the pretext that she wasn't available.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Have you done it before? Could we meet at a different time?

Mr. Bernhardt: It has happened rarely simply for practical reasons, as it's often difficult to find rooms and times with members who are otherwise available. There is certainly no problem with doing it, other than making the practical arrangements.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): We should certainly try.

[Translation]

Mr. Kmiec: I think my NDP colleague made an excellent suggestion. It's what the committee should do in order to accommodate the minister's schedule. We could suggest a date when she would be available to appear before the committee to explain, as my Liberal colleague indicated, why one of her department's senior officials gave us the answers he did and tell us exactly why her department believes the regulations should remain as they are. With that in mind, I'm amenable to the idea that the committee be open to accommodating the minister's schedule.

[English]

Mr. Ehsassi: With respect to the letter that we intend to write, obviously the function of this committee is not only to deter departments from being lackadaisical in their approach to these types of regulatory issues but also when they appear here to have a sensible approach and inform us how they intend to remedy things going forward.

Listening to the testimony we heard today, I didn't get any satisfactory response. Perhaps in a letter we should also say that we were unsatisfied with the remedies suggested and that the department can get back to us in writing specifically telling us how they intend to fix this problem.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Those are all very good ideas.

Senator Moore: The idea is to write a letter to the minister setting out our dissatisfaction and asking her to appear. If she can't, I don't think it should be anybody less than the deputy minister to appear.

She will come and probably stick to the same line that Mr. Moffet did, supported by an opinion from Justice. So then what? We're still at odds. How do we achieve what should be done according to counsel? How do we get that done? Is there any way, in the next little while, that the joint chairs could talk to them? We'll just go down this road again. The minister will probably defend Mr. Moffet, and then what? Do we do the disallowance? We are going to point out that it's available and we're prepared to do it because that's in the letter as well.

Senator Merchant: At the very least, we will know the minister is aware of it.

Senator Moore: True.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): I have to agree about this morning. She can talk, but we didn't get many answers.

Mr. Di Iorio: She had better manners at least.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): We didn't get much out of it. I don't know how long she has been the director.

We'll just go ahead. We might as well try.

Senator Moore: We can do better.

Senator Merchant: Okay.

Mr. Di Iorio: I will take this opportunity to suggest something. When we call witnesses, I notice that at this committee we try to work by consensus as much as possible, and we have very able counsel to assist us. In preparation for the meeting, would we be able to share some of the resources? We could do our own individual preparation. For example, in referring to the correspondence, obviously the representatives make their own preparation, but there are factual elements that we could probably gather by pulling some of our resources together through counsel to have the factual basis readily at hand, instead of having to do our own research so then it's done six, seven, maybe eight times.

I make the suggestion while I have it in mind. We all have legislative assistants. Maybe we should encourage them to work together to share elements of preparation. We could even have sub-specialties when it's time to address the witnesses and not simply have the witness with the benefit of having I don't know how many staff assist them because they are coming here and try to anticipate our questions and throw us off the appropriate path.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): That sounds like a good idea.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): I would respond that our counsel and analysts have done a good job on giving us as much background from our side as we can get. The summary of 38 files was extremely helpful and the number of files within each file. I don't know how much more detail we can expect to dig out. I defer if you think there is more work they would need to do. For me, just wading through this document each week is a heavy amount of material.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Okay.

Mr. Ehsassi: If I can make another suggestion, I find that when it comes to this committee, it may be helpful if we asked witnesses to provide their statements 48 hours before they appear. That obviously will lead to them providing us with more satisfactory answers because they know we are going to be seized of this before they arrive. We then won't waste our time because we will have the time to scrutinize what they have provided us and give them a more difficult time once they appear.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): How much time did you say? Was it 48 hours?

Mr. Ehsassi: Yes.

Obviously a lot of individuals who appear as witnesses don't have the capacity to provide bilingual remarks, but in this case we are dealing with government agencies, so it would behoove us to ask them for their remarks beforehand.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): That's not unusual as sometimes we do get information from witnesses. This morning I asked her if she had a written presentation and she replied that it would be distributed. We didn't have time to look at it and simply had to listen to what she said without much time to think about it. I don't know if we can make them send us material, but we can certainly request it.

Mr. Bernhardt: We could ask for that when setting up the arrangements.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): I think it's appropriate.

Mr. Tan: I'm new to this committee and I still don't know the function or the power of the committee. In the follow- up to what the senator said, for example the witness mentioned that they understand the benefit of working collaboratively with the committee. Is "collaboration'' the right word to describe the function or the power or the mandate of the committee?

Mr. Bernhardt: Probably not. The committee's function is as an audit committee for regulatory oversight to check and ensure that government regulatory powers given by Parliament are properly exercised. To some extent, because of the way that works in practice, there is an exchange of views and maybe some cooperation in the sense that it doesn't have to be a completely adversarial relationship. At the end of the day, there may well be issues where there is legitimate disagreement.

I think there are two aspects to what the committee heard this morning. It's one thing to reply and agree and promise to do something, which may involve some collaboration; but it's another thing entirely to go out and do it. As far as what the committee heard this morning, about all I can say is that time will tell.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): A better word would be "productively'' with the committee.

Senator Omidvar: On that point, I'm looking at the mandate of the committee on the website. It says the committee has "broad jurisdiction to enquire into and report on most aspects of the federal regulatory process.'' Those are the limits.

Mr. Bernhardt: At the end of day, the committee has the same powers as any other parliamentary committee, aside from the ability to recommend allowance. It always must be kept in mind that's all it is — a recommendation to the two houses for disallowance. The committee has the same powers or lack of powers as any other parliamentary committee.

Senator Moore: I have one small point with regard to the request to have witness reports brought into us at least 48 hours beforehand. If that happens, the reports should be in both official languages, one in English and one in French, and not a mixture like we had this morning.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Was that only in English, Senator Moore?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): It was mixed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): I see. Yes, and that's the way she presented it too.

SOR/78-830 — WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK GAME REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix C, p. 6C:1. )

SOR/2002-76 — MARINE ACTIVITIES IN THE SAGUENAY - ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 6D:1. )

SOR/2005-206 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL PARKS OF CANADA FISHING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 6E:1. )

SOR/2010-140 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 6F:1. )

SOR/2011-217 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARKS GENERAL REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 6G:1. )

SOR/2015-134 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HISTORIC CANALS REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 6H:1.)

Mr. Bernhardt: Agenda Items 5(a) to 5(f) all go together. These are the six files the committee has concerning regulations under the responsibility of Parks Canada. One of these, SOR/2011-17, was before the committee on May 19. Members took note that no reply to a December 2014 letter had been forthcoming despite three reminders. The committee was also told there were these five other files where the situation was basically the same.

As a result, the head of the agency was advised that an explanation for this was expected within seven days and substantive responses were expected without further delay. That June 1 letter was sent electronically to the chief executive officer on June 1 and a paper copy delivered by hand the same day.

On Tuesday, I contacted the office of the CEO to confirm that the letter was received, and it was. Yesterday, I received a call from the CEO, Mr. Watson, who sends his apologies for not getting a response to the committee within seven days, claiming that he only became aware of the chair's letter after my phone call on Tuesday. He indicated he found the situation described in that letter disturbing and gave an assurance he would get to the bottom of things and remedy them as quickly as possible. The committee will get a response shortly. Mr. Watson concluded his remarks by agreeing that, in his words, "no answer is never the right answer.''

Mr. Brassard: Given the recent circumstances, it was going to be my recommendation, and that of Senator Runciman as well, that we get the CEO to come to this committee, similar to what we experienced this morning. In light of the new information, I would ask if he gave you a timeline on the response.

Mr. Bernhardt: He said as soon as possible. I assume we can bring this back at the first meeting in the fall. We should have a response well before that, I should think.

Mr. Brassard: I'm satisfied with that. I suspect you are too, Mr. Bernhardt. If the committee is satisfied, that would be my recommendation.

Mr. Bernhardt: That would be the next meeting.

Senator Moore: I want to follow up Mr. Brassard's comments. Do you write a letter back to him to say, "Thank you, pursuant to our discussion of the other day, we expect to have a report''? The letter could say, "Please be advised that the committee will be meeting on this date and we'd like to have it in advance of that.'' Can you do that?

Mr. Bernhardt: I can do that if it's the committee's wish.

Senator Moore: I'd get it on record.

Mr. Brassard: I agree with Senator Moore. The fact is we can write a confirmation letter back outlining the substance of our conversation and writing to confirm.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): It's a reminder to him that we are keeping an eye on them, too.

SOR/2002-1 — PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE CHICKEN FARMERS OF CANADA PROCLAMATION

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 6I:1. )

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Next is Item 6 on our agenda, under the heading "Action Promised (?)''.

[Translation]

Evelyne Borkowski-Parent, Committee Counsel: The last time the Proclamation Amending the Chicken Farmers of Canada Proclamation was before the committee, the Farm Products Council had reneged on its promise to amend section 9 and remained vague regarding its intention to amend section 12.1 of the proclamation.

As a result, the committee instructed counsel to correspond directly with the Chicken Farmers of Canada in the hope of making progress on an issue that, keep in mind, had been raised for the first time in 2002.

The committee's efforts were unsuccessful given the response of the Chicken Farmers of Canada, sent through their legal counsel, a response that can only be described as off-topic. This gave rise to further correspondence between the committee and the Farm Products Council, which appears in your briefing package.

In its most recent letter, from March of this year, the council suggested that all of the amendments requested by the committee would finally be made but that, owing to the additional comments in the committee's letter of September 28, 2015, the drafting process had been put on hold in order to include the additional amendments.

I should stress that the points raised by the committee in its letter of September 28, 2015 were not new. In fact, they had been raised in points 4 and 6 of the initial letter sent by the committee on October 7, 2002, and had been the subject of repeated letters sent by the committee since. That said, considering that all of the issues raised in this file were apparently being addressed in the drafting phase of the regulatory process, the committee may have reason to be cautiously optimistic.

[English]

Senator Moore: What is the resolve? What we are doing?

Mr. Bernhardt: We'll follow up.

Senator Moore: When?

Mr. Bernhardt: Our standard procedure would be four months, but we're pretty much to the four months by now, so we'll follow it up.

SOR/2011-236 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CRIMINAL RECORDS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 6J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Next is Item 7 under the heading "Action Promised.''

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: Public safety has agreed to amend the regulations to address the three issues raised by the committee. The last letter from the department does not indicate, however, when those amendments will be made.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): We'll ask for clarification as to when.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 6K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Next is Item 8 on our agenda, under the same heading.

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: Canada Post has agreed to clarify a reference to an international convention. The corporation anticipates that the amendment will be made during the 2017 regulated rate action. We can follow up, as is our usual practice.

SOR/2009-319 — RULES AMENDING THE PATENT RULES

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 6L:1.)

SOR/2015-142 — REGULATIONS AMENDING AND REPEALING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 6M:1.)

SOR/2015-185 — BY-LAWS AMENDING CERTAIN BY-LAWS MADE UNDER THE CANADIAN PAYMENTS ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 6N:1.)

SOR/2015-229 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 6O:1.)

SOR/2015-230 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN ANTI-DUMPING REGULATIONS.

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 6P:1.)

SOR/2015-245 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE RADIO REGULATIONS, 1986.

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 6Q:1. )

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Agenda Items 9 to 14 fall under the heading "Action Taken.''

Mr. Bernhardt: I'd simply note that taken altogether, Items 9 to 14 make 18 amendments the committee had asked for. Among those are the deletion of some unnecessary definitions from various chicken marketing regulations. In connection with Mr. Brassard's comment, this was a case, I think, where the disallowance threat finally led to action being taken.

Senator Moore: What happened to the last two items? Are we doing letters or just following up? I didn't understand what we were doing. Number 7 and number 8, what did we decide?

Mr. Bernhardt: We will follow up on those, ask for a time frame.

Senator Moore: Okay, so you're going to write. Thank you.

Mr. Bernhardt: For items 13 and 14, those files can be closed as action has been taken.

SI/2015-15 — CERTAIN FLIGHTS CHARGE AND TAX REMISSION ORDER

SI/2015-39 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO BE THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT

SI/2015-44 — ORDER AMENDING THE REPRESENTATIONAL GIFTS REMISSION ORDER AND REPEALING ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 88/2969

SI/2015-45 — REMISSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF A TRANSFER OF A SAHTU DENE AND METIS SETTLEMENT CORPORATION'S ASSETS UNDER A SELF-GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT

SI/2015-46 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 11, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-48 — ORDER AMENDING THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE ORDER

SI/2015-51 — 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/2015-54 — ORDER FIXING JULY 1, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2015-55 — DANIEL J. EGAN REMISSION ORDER

SI/2015-56 — CÉLINE HAMEL INCOME TAX REMISSION ORDER

SI/2015-57 — GEORGE RICHARD REMISSION ORDER

SI/2015-58 — ORDER FIXING JULY 9, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH PART 1 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2015-59 — 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/2015-60 — ORDER FIXING JULY 23, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-61 — ORDER AMENDING CERTAIN ORDERS RESPECTING THE INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

SI/2015-62 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TO BE THE MINISTER REFERRED TO IN THE ACT

SI/2015-63 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2015-64 — ORDER FIXING JULY 1, 2015 AND AUGUST 1, 2015 AS THE DAYS ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-66 — POLAR MEDAL AND SOVEREIGN'S MEDAL FOR VOLUNTEERS ORDER

SI/2015-69 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY THAT IS 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2015-70 — YOSUKE KAWASAKI REMISSION ORDER

SI/2015-74 — TRANSFER OF DUTIES ORDER

SI/2015-75 — PROCLAMATION DISSOLVING PARLIAMENT

SI/2015-78 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTION 87 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2015-79 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-80 — ORDER FIXING SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2015-83 — PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING "FIRE PREVENTION WEEK''

SOR/2014-268 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT

SOR/2015-113 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2015-116 —REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-119 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-135 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (MADAWASKA MALISEET FIRST NATION)

SOR/2015-136 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS ELECTIONS ACT (MADAWASKA MALISEET FIRST NATION)

SOR/2015-148 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (MICMACS OF GESGAPEGIAG)

SOR/2015-149 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS ELECTIONS ACT (MICMACS OF GESGAPEGIAG)

SOR/2015-150 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (MALAHAT FIRST NATION)

SOR/2015-153 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF CIRCULATION COINS OF A TWO DOLLAR AND TWO TWENTY-FIVE CENT SPECIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS AND DETERMINING THE DESIGN

SOR/2015-154 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 TO THE PATENT ACT (2014-1)

SOR/2015-173 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-174 — ORDER 2015-87-06-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2015-175 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES

SOR/2015-176 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2015-178 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (RUSSIA) REGULATIONS

SOR/2015-194 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT (ALBERTA WITNESS SECURITY PROGRAM)

SOR/2015-198 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

SOR/2015-204 — ORDER 2015-87-09-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2015-205 — ORDER 2015-112-09-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2015-206 — ORDER 2015-66-09-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2015-207 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (ENGLISH RIVER FIRST NATION)

SOR/2015-208 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE FIRST NATIONS ELECTIONS ACT (ENGLISH RIVER FIRST NATION)

Mr. Bernhardt: Last but not least, there is a list of 50 instruments that we had reviewed and found to comply with all of the committee's criteria.

The Joint Chair (Senator Merchant): Thank you, colleagues. Have a great summer.

(The committee adjourned.)