---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 12 - Evidence - October 9, 2014

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, October 9, 2014

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:34 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator Denise Batters (Joint Chair) and Mr. Gary Breitkreuz (Vice-Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Good morning everyone. Ms. Charlton is away today, so I am in the chair, ably assisted by my fellow Saskatchewanian, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Before we get started, I want to bring to the committee's attention that yesterday, in a meeting I attended of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we were studying the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposal. During that meeting, I took the opportunity to draw the attention of the committee and those who might be tuning in that many of the items brought forward in the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposal are as a result of the good and often unheralded work of members of this committee. Those proposals have been the work of the committee and of counsel for many years. There are a number of items being cleaned up as a result of that proposal, which is working through the system. I also wanted to let members know that their good work was recognized yesterday by the Department of Justice lawyers who were there. It's not just getting up at 8:30 in the morning; occasionally, a little bit of credit is given for it.

CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 1 on today's agenda is under the heading ''Special Agenda Item.'' Counsel has had three meetings with departmental officials on these outstanding matters since January, the last of which took place in early July. These meetings seem to be producing good progress. Amendments have been published in the Canada Gazette on several points, some of which are under review by counsel. Counsel has recently requested clarification on several other points and is awaiting a departmental response. On a few items, a deadline of the end of 2014 is now expected.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: I don't have much to add except to say that other amendments have been pre-published in Part I. At this point, I think we can say that there have been developments on 14 of the 19 files here. It's still early days, but it looks like there has been some progress.

What I would propose, at this point, for all of these files is to return to submitting them to the committee individually, as we have action promised, action taken or developments on each one. Of course, that doesn't preclude continuing to meet periodically with the department on the broader issues as whole, and I think there is likely to be another meeting scheduled later this fall.

Mr. Albas: I appreciate, Madam Chair, that counsel has worked very hard on what is a technical area, probably outside of the norm for them.

I just wanted to ask counsel through you, Madam Chair, whether or not he could give a brief report if he feels that Transport Canada has been working in good faith to realize these files and to listen to the committee's concerns.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, I think we can clearly see from Transport that they have been taking this seriously. You mentioned how much work it has been for us. It is certainly a far greater task for the department to put this all together, and the documentation they have been providing in advance of the meetings has been very helpful. The fact that we have had some amendments made, have another package to be made by the end of the year and have had some pre-published, as well as substantive responses on a number of files, shows they are making an effort to resolve these issues.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Does that seem fine for everyone?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-631 — VINYL CHLORIDE RELEASE REGULATIONS, 1992

(For text of documents, see Appendix A , p. 12A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 2 under ''Letters To and From Ministers.'' After lengthy delays in dealing with departmental officials on amendments regarding these matters, the joint chairs of the committee wrote to the environment minister. The minister replied in early July, reporting that internal consultations to attempt to resolve this matter are near completion and that a government decision is expected by the end of fiscal year. These are largely drafting matters, with one substantive matter outstanding.

Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: The minister refers to a different approach to resolving these matters. I'm not sure exactly what that would refer to. Obviously, we are talking about amendments to the regulations, so perhaps it is in a different package of amendments. They advise that a decision can be provided later this fiscal year. I suppose it's a question of keeping an eye on where things are and asking for a progress report in due course.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Does anyone wish to comment? Are members agreed with counsel's suggestion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-105 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 12B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 3 is under the ''New Instrument'' category. The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority is an arm's-length agency from the Government of Canada. They charged surcharge amounts totalling $470,000 over a five-month time frame without having those surcharges officially legally in effect. The authority responds that it is not feasible to repay these charges to those who paid them.

Counsel, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Bernhardt: You are correct, Madam Chair; that's what is claimed. On the other hand, the authority also seems to indicate it has a list of customers who paid. It has been able to come up with an exact figure to the dollar of the amounts paid. Apparently it has already contacted at least some of these people because it says the customers indicated that refunding amounts would not be beneficial. One may wonder how to reconcile that with the claim that they can't identify these people and it would be impractical to refund the money.

That being said, I suppose the issue squarely in front of the committee is what it wishes to do in response to the fact that this money was collected unlawfully for a period of some months.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: If our counsel is confused, I am even more confused than he is. How could the agency collect that money if it does not know how to refund it? It must have always issued an invoice or at least some sort of a payment request, so it should be able to find those documents. We would have serious problems if, every time the government collected money illegally, it stated that it was unable to identify the individuals who had to be given a refund. It is definitely not the first time such a situation has arisen, either here or elsewhere.

There must be a way to resolve this situation. We have the right to know why the agency is unable to identify the people it owes money to, especially since it had no problem charging them. There must be an intelligent reason for all this, as what the agency has been telling us so far makes no sense.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): It sounds like they do have the information, actually.

Mr. Bernhardt: One suspects they do, from what they're saying, and that some information is there. In the past, the committee has encountered these situations from time to time and has followed one of several approaches to try to resolve them. In some cases, the committee has insisted successfully that the money be repaid. In other cases, the committee has suggested the possibility of retroactive legislation that would validate the collection of this money. In other cases, I think the committee has been satisfied with the assurance from whoever collected the money that they have advised everybody that paid that the money was collected illegally and that if people wished to ask for it back, they could do so.

What seems to happen at times in the industries when you break it down to the individual charge, some people consider it more trouble than it's worth while other people have a different view of the matter. There has been a range of tools that the committee has tried to use to resolve these situations.

Mr. Garneau: My simple understanding of this is that money was collected that should not have been collected. We know who it was collected from, and the government should reimburse that money.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: We are talking about nearly half a million dollars. If the amount was $50, I do not think there would be a big stir over it, but the amount is $469,000. If the money cannot be refunded, would it not be possible to give a credit, or does the agency really not know who has paid that 12 per cent surcharge? After all, this is a significant amount.

Can our counsel tell us if those people could at least be given a credit for a future claim?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: Under the tariff as it's written, that may not legally be a possibility. That would require amending the tariff to put in place an entire system of credits and balances.

Informally and practically what the authority decides to do may be a different matter. I suppose if they wished of their own accord to voluntarily make that offer as a matter of goodwill to people, it might balance everything out in the course of time.

Mr. Albas: I'm happy that counsel has written a very descriptive report on this subject.

When it comes to this, my thoughts are as follows: There are two issues. The first is that legal requirements are made here in Ottawa under which this particular pilotage authority operates. The second one is practical. I will start with the practical one and we'll work our way back to the legal one.

The first paragraph in the summary says that each pilotage charge is payable under section 3 of the regulations for services provided. That means something was given and something was taken. For people to simply say we should give the money back also means there will be $469,873 less in their operations. I'm not sure how this particular authority could manage that kind of hit to their finances, particularly when in good faith the people who work there, unbeknownst to them, were operating in a way that was not aligned with the requirements under law.

Second, when someone pilots and manages these ships, they're dealing with international agents. Some will pay the fees for the actual owners of the ship; some owners pay it themselves. We may not know whether this money will get to the person who ultimately paid the bill because the agent might end up keeping it. Who knows? There is a very practical issue of trying to reimburse for an administrative error on the part of the authority.

That is not to say there shouldn't be some sort of consequence for this action.

First, my suggestion to the committee is that we should write to the minister, identify that this particular authority failed to properly amend its regulations so that this could be collected lawfully, and suggest to the minister that retroactive legislation be introduced at the earliest and most convenient opportunity so that this could be dealt with in a lawful way.

Second, we should simply write to the authority itself and let them know that we expect better of them next time, and copy the minister on that.

Again, to be offering money back for services rendered is not practical; and I do not know the state of their finances. For us to go further down this rabbit hole is not a good use of the committee's time. The senator made a good point about lawfulness, and I agree with her on that.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: I've been partially swayed now by Mr. Albas's remarks, but I'm of the school of thought that if it was collected unlawfully, then it should be returned. However, in reading more of the analysis, it seems like it would be arduous to actually return the half a million dollars that was unlawfully collected.

I have a question for Mr. Bernhardt. At the very end of your analysis, it says that apparently the customers who were billed have been consulted. Is it that the apparent consultation is not clear to you, because it was apparently done by the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's just the reference in the last sentence that's quoted from their letter where they say:

The Authority has been informed by the customers that refunding these small amounts per customer would not be beneficial . . . .

I take it from that quote that they have made efforts to contact.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: And we don't know what these efforts might have been?

Mr. Bernhardt: We don't know what they are or whether everyone was contacted. They mentioned at one point that a lot of these are paid through the shipowners' federation, so they may simply have contacted the federation rather than the individual shipowners. We don't really know.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: I'd feel more comfortable knowing that we did our due diligence and ensured that we actually did contact the people who were charged unlawfully. As long as we know that we did our due diligence, then I'd feel comfortable that we did everything we could. If we don't refund the half a million dollars, then we don't. As long as we have done everything that we should have and actually contacted the customers, I'd feel far more comfortable.

Mr. Garneau: I don't agree with the argument presented by Mr. Albas that the state of finances of the pilotage authority is in any way relevant to the discussion we are having today. Yes, they offered the services, but the services should not have included the surcharge. That is the point we are discussing here, not the financial state of the pilotage authority.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I agree with the letter to the minister, but not the retroactive the law to confirm the 12 per cent, which is a supplementary payment —

Mr. Bernhardt, do we have many pieces of regulation in Canada whereby if you are a stranger you pay an amount, and if you are a foreigner you pay another amount for exactly the same service? I'm going to the root of the question. Why would we not charge foreigners the same fee as any ship carrying a Canadian flag, when most of the ships are carrying foreign flags for income tax purposes?

Mr. Bernhardt: It's fairly common, senator, for regulations to distinguish amongst classes of users of the service and who pays what. I could not tell you in how many cases that distinction is based on whether you are a Canadian or a foreign business or agency. I suspect there are examples out there.

Here, of course, the service would have been identical no matter who it was provided to: You have a pilot on the ship, and he is taking you through the Welland Canal or whatever. Whether you are a Liberian freighter or a Canadian ore carrier, the service will be the same. They simply charge the 12 per cent.

I think the pilotage charges are often on an hourly or daily basis. You pay for the services of the pilot, and they impose the 12 per cent on everybody.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: We have the same thing in Quebec: We supply pilots several times along the way, and I would never imagine that, as a government, we would charge different fees for the same service. Normally there is a fee schedule and you are charged a certain fee depending on the hours, the time or the distance; but then 12 per cent is added legally by people who are supposed to be the official administrators of the Great Lakes.

I agree on the question of writing the minister to underline this and say that he should make sure they know what they are doing. But to say we should legislate retroactively to justify half a million dollars — it would mean this would apply in the future.

The substance of the 12 per cent should be examined as well. To me it's strange to charge it if we want to do business or some trade. When going across the border between Ontario and the United States, it's as if there would be a different fee depending on which side you are coming from. If it's $3 in Canada, it's the same on the other side. It's normally the same thing on both sides. I've never seen that we charge different fees because of the origin of the one receiving the service.

I agree to send a letter to remind them to do their job.

As far as the 12 per cent, I think writing also to the corporation — I agree with that, too. But at least we could ask them to make a little effort to find out, because I don't accept the end of letter saying that they cannot find it. Let them make a little more effort to find out who has paid.

Mr. Albas: Business is done in a way where businesses say, ''Tell me what I owe to be able to get the service so I can run my business,'' and they gladly pay for it. They expect government and the individual agency, in this case an authority, to operate within the bounds and to present them with a reasonable charge. They quite gladly accept the services.

For us now to say that it doesn't matter that services were rendered and that just because the paper work was not filed on time we want you to pay back almost half a million dollars, that will have a serious impact on their operations. Some members may not care about that, but ultimately we are all about keeping our economy going and recognizing that mistakes can happen from time to time.

I will also remind this committee — and the senator has been here much longer than I — there are cases where sometimes these things happen with these independent agencies and marketing boards where they will collect fees and not do the proper paperwork. Sometimes the practical matter is, ''How do we address this?'' If this committee is to take action, we should raise it to the minister. Counsel's analysis is that:

The Authority commits to putting ''all measures in place to guarantee that the future tariff and regulatory amendments come into force only on the date of registration.

We can bring it to the minister's attention and allow her to evaluate the situation. If she feels that this can best be solved by retroactive legislation, then I'm sure she will take that under advice.

However, as a practical matter, for us to be asking the pilotage authority to go back and contact every single customer does not seem reasonable to me. They have addressed our concern and now we need to decide as parliamentarians where to take it. Writing to the minister and asking this to be put in law is the first step so that it's lawful. The second step is advising that we will be holding the authority to its commitments.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Perhaps we should have the committee weigh in on the proposal from Mr. Albas, namely, that we write to the minister, identify that the authority failed to amend this provision and suggest that retroactive legislation would be the way to handle this; is that correct?

Mr. Albas: Correct.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Part of the proposal you had indicated before was also writing to the authority, copying the minister, to point out that we want them to do better next time and that we expect them to follow these rules.

Is there consensus for that?

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I completely agree with Senator Hervieux-Payette. As for clients, computers are used nowadays, and there is a way to find clients. These things are not written down on pieces of paper. The agency said it had already identified the affected clients, who apparently said it was not a big deal. I do not know how we could verify that.

We are a transparent country, so those clients should be given a refund. End of story. Imagine if an error was found in someone's tax return. Those people would have to give back the money, would they not? Charging additional fees gives Canada a bad image. Even though Canada is a country open to free trade, we have to be transparent. If an error has been made, it has to be corrected.

I agree with Senator Hervieux-Payette's suggestion that this be added to the letter.

[English]

Mr. Albas: Again, if we go that route, we are giving these businesses a free ride on those services.

Ms. Ayala: No.

Mr. Albas: They don't expect that. They are not asking for that.

An Hon. Member: That's outrageous.

Mr. Albas: No, that's what it is because you are offering a service without any fee.

I have the floor, please.

It is important to note that that's what we're asking for here by saying that.

At the end of day, this committee has to be practical and work with the powers at hand. We have an authority that needs to operate under the law, and we are holding them to account. We have a minister who also has obligations to make sure these independent authorities operate under the law. I understand that there are concerns, but to just be giving money for services rendered, that is what you are proposing.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: Listening to Mr. Albas's argument, I have a question for counsel.

Is Mr. Albas correct in saying that if we successfully identify the people who paid for services rendered and the money is returned, we will be refunding 100 per cent of the money that was paid; is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: If it would give some members more comfort, one possible approach would be to write back to the authority and ask for more details. Who were these customers that they apparently talked to? How did they contact these people and what did they say? That will to provide a better idea of exactly who was talked to.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Perhaps also find out if it's even feasible.

Mr. Bernhardt: I think the answer from the authority will always be that it's not feasible because they don't want to repay the money. To them, that will by definition make it not feasible.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: But, Mr. Bernhardt, my question still remains. If we suggest that the authority returns the $469,873, will that mean that we are suggesting that the authority return 100 per cent of the value of the services rendered?

Mr. Bernhardt: No, the committee would be saying that what should be returned is the 12 per cent surcharge. There is no question that the base fee that the tariff regulations provide for was validly collected. What the committee's talking about is this 12 per cent surcharge that was imposed temporarily — it's due to expire at the end of December — presumably to make up for some shortfall or operating issue that they had so that they wished to collect this extra 12 per cent for a certain period.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: Thank you for that clarification. That debunks Mr. Albas's argument that these ship captains came through and paid for services that were rendered by the authority and that now we're suggesting that we return the monies that were paid for the services that were already rendered.

I'm just thinking of generally accepted accounting principles that are followed in this country. For services that were rendered, if the payment was incorrect, we account for them within that period and make sure that we return payments that were over or collect for payments that were under.

I'm going on the advice that you are giving me, counsel, that it was not for 100 per cent of the services rendered. If there were some value of service that was rendered by the authority for that 12 per cent, over and beyond the rest of the expected services, then maybe we say, ''Okay, there is 5 per cent value in the services that were already rendered,'' and reach out.

I'm suggesting that the authority actually look into this. I go back to the argument of due diligence.

Mr. Garneau: I think this is all about the right thing to do. We do live in the computer age and we can find the people who paid that 12 per cent surcharge.

Let me bring an example home to all of us. We can relate to the fact that we all fly. As part of the cost, we know that many surcharges are imposed upon us — airport charges and others. Let's say that, through administrative error, we found out that for about six months, a year or two years after we were charged, it was actually not allowed to happen. I would certainly not say, ''Well, that's okay; I did get a service here.'' No, I would not. It was an administrative error, and they need the money.

I would say that the right thing to do is to repay the money. There's no blame here; it was an error. But not to repay those who should not have had to pay that 12 per cent surcharge and to suggest that we can't find out who they are, to me, is preposterous.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We've discussed all of the ins and outs of this matter for quite some time. Mr. Albas has a proposal on the table to write to the minister, identify that the authority in this situation has failed to amend the regulation to properly charge this surcharge and suggest to the minister that retroactive legislation be introduced, at the earliest possible opportunity, to rectify the situation, and to further write to the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority and copy the minister, outlining our concerns on this matter. Does that adequately reflect your proposal?

Mr. Albas: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): I suggest that we have a vote if we can't reach a consensus.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We will have a vote. All those in favour of the proposal enunciated by Mr. Albas? Seven in favour.

All those opposed? Six opposed.

Mr. Albas's proposal is accepted and those letters will go out.

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

(For text of document, see Appendix C, p. 12C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 4 is under ''Reply Unsatisfactory.'' This particular matter seems to have our counsel's feathers in a flap. The Chicken Farmers of Canada apparently agreed last fall to amendments to define certain terms used in their Delegation of Authority Order. Now the Farm Products Council advises that the chicken farmers disagree that these amendments should be made.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. The issue is a provision in the order that states that when allotting and administrating federal quotas, the provincial board is to apply the orders, regulations and rules of the province to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Canadian Chicken Marketing Quota Regulations in relation to the determination of who is a producer and who are the producer's partners, affiliates, associates and subsidiaries. This seems rather curious because the Canadian Chicken Marketing Quota Regulations make no mention of partners, affiliates, associates or subsidiaries, so it's unclear why you'd have to make these determinations and for what purpose.

Are the definitions in the provincial legislation and, if not, what definitions apply? There are a number of questions.

The requested explanations were never provided. However, in 2013 the Farm Products Council advised that the Chicken Farmers had agreed to make all the amendments proposed by the committee. The committee took this to mean amendments addressing all the matters, including this one.

Apparently, the Farm Products Council has been advised by the Chicken Farmers that they do not agree with proceeding to deal with the issue by way of defining the terms in question because somehow it would be contrary to the Supreme Court decision in Quebec v. Pelland, which determined the constitutionality of the chicken marketing scheme and incorporation by reference of provincial legislation as part of that scheme. It's hard to see what the relevance of that case could be to the question of whether this order is sufficiently clear as to who's a partner, affiliate, associate or subsidiary and why you have to decide that in the first place. No part of the explanation first sought six years ago has been provided, so I think at the very least the chicken farmers should ask now to explain the purpose of referring to all these terms and determinations.

That aside, of course, the Farm Products Council previously told the committee that the Chicken Farmers had agreed to make all amendments necessary to address the committee's concerns. The committee would be entitled to an explanation for this apparent miscommunication that took place. This is not the first time that the Farm Products Council has told the committee that amendments would be made, only to have the Chicken Farmers then refuse.

On one of the other points, there has been agreement to delete certain unnecessary definitions that repeat definitions in the enabling proclamation. Members may recall a related file where these definitions were removed only to be replaced with an equally unnecessary provision stating that the definitions and proclamation applied, which is as unnecessary as repeating the definitions. It might be prudent, given what has transpired in the past and on this file, to seek confirmation that that will not happen again.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): There was a reference in the Farm Products Council letter to blue-stamping. What does that mean?

Mr. Bernhardt: ''Blue-stamping'' is the term used for a draft being approved by the Department of Justice. Draft regulations are submitted to the department; when they have finished and approved them, it's called blue-stamping. Back in the old days there was a stamp with blue ink that they put on each page, and the term survived through the years.

Mr. Albas: I'll give my personal opinion. In our dealings with the Chicken Farmers, I've seen them rely heavily on their legal counsel, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it is serving them well in this case. This is clearly a case of drafting and clarity. We want to see drafting changes to erroneous terms that are not pertinent to the legislation they fall under, not provincial legislation. They do not need to be in there. Unfortunately, there seems to be a continued back and forth, and they have brought constitutional arguments to an administrative set of drafting suggestions we made.

We should absolutely write back to both the Chicken Farmers and the Farm Products Council to reiterate our position. I even looked at Quebec v. Pelland. It's a wonderful case and I'm sure the players in it should be proud of their accomplishments, but it's not pertinent to this file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 12D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next on today's agenda is Item 5. Two subsections of the regulations in question seem to grant permission to do something that is not prohibited now, and two other subsections of the regulations place restrictions on this permission. Counsel has sought but not received an acceptable rationale for these provisions.

Mr. Bernhardt: Correct. I don't know how far back to go on this file.

The question concerns provisions that place requirements on operators of mills who discharge effluent into wastewater systems, including municipal wastewater systems. The committee has taken the view that the prohibition in the Fisheries Act against discharging deleterious substances can't be taken so broadly as to apply to transfers of substances from one facility to another for the purposes of treatment. If that were the case, it would necessarily follow, for example, that every time someone in a household in Canada deposited deleterious substances into the municipal water treatment system, they would be contravening the Fisheries Act. That seems to be a ridiculous result.

It looked like there might be a resolution at hand when the government announced that there would be new regulations to govern discharges out of waste water systems. The committee was told at the time that there would be concurrent amendments to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations to remove the requirements pertaining to offsite treatment facilities. In the department's words: ''Environment Canada will be addressing this matter.''

When the proposed new Wastewater Treatment System Regulations were pre-published, there were no concurrent amendments to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations and there was no mention of any such amendments in the impact analysis statement. Naturally, the committee sought confirmation that it remained the department's intention to remove the requirements pertaining to effluent placed into wastewater treatment facilities when the new regulations came into force. Apparently, that confirmation was received. However, according to the department, it seems that the department was in fact confirming that the requirements relating to deposits out of rather than into treatment facilities would be removed. In other words, the department was answering a different question than the committee was asking.

The new regulations made in 2012 place requirements on wastewater treatment facilities. The requirements on output from those facilities have been removed from the regulations; however, the restrictions on what is placed into the facilities remain.

This was considered by the committee back in February, and members expressed their disappointment that the amendments they thought had been promised had not been made and thus sought an explanation. The August letter from the department apologizes for any misunderstanding and states that the department committed only to removing requirements placed on offsite treatment facilities to avoid duplication but not to addressing the committee's objection.

By way of summing up, I note that the committee sought more than once the department's confirmation that it remained the intent to remove the requirements pertaining to effluent placed into these facilities. The department was well aware of the nature of the committee's objection to those requirements, and it must have known why the committee would make its inquiries and looking for updates and assurances. Despite this, the department either misunderstood the question the committee was asking or saw no need to correct the committee's mistaken impression.

It also bears noting that now that deposits out of municipal systems are being regulated, the provisions the committee has taken issue with will actually do very little to protect fish habitat. They are simply monitoring the reporting requirements. Provided you monitor and report, you can deposit anything you want into a municipal treatment system. Even the department recognizes these are, in their words, ''minor administrative requirements.'' The committee wanted to know the department's views as to the continued actual usefulness of these provisions, but the department's August reply makes no response to that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Does anyone have any comments?

Mr. Albas: It's rather unfortunate that the committee has invested so much time going down this particular path only to find out that the answers we were given were in reference to another element and not the case at hand. I appreciate that counsel has worked long and hard on this file, as have committee members.

I have a question. By moving the discussion from ''from'' rather than ''to,'' are our concerns still valid, per se, that this is of a duplicated nature?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes. The committee's concern has always been with the requirements on ''deposits to.'' The department, because of the new regulations, has taken out the provisions in the regulations on the ''deposits from'' the systems and claims to have misunderstood that the committee's concern was the same concern it had always been, which was with the deposits into the system.

Mr. Albas: Is it counsel's opinion that it would be a worthwhile venture to write back and ask for information regarding our concerns, given this new information?

Mr. Bernhardt: Frankly, I'm not sure there would be much purpose to that. The department has indicated, contrary to what it seems to have led the committee to believe, it never intended to address these matters and reiterates its view that the provisions are authorized.

Mr. Albas: So the provisions are lawful in that they reflect what's enabling statute; is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: In the view of the department, not in the view of the committee to date.

Mr. Albas: Given this new information, should we be looking at that position?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think that position has been fairly thoroughly hashed out over the years.

As I say, the note reiterates the arguments. The committee can certainly put those same arguments back to the department yet again. I think the answer is likely to be, ''Sorry, but the department thinks it's fine.'' The committee has repeatedly asked them to deal with the logical consequence of their position, which is that everyone who flushes a toilet in Canada is contravening the Fisheries Act. They've said, ''Arguably, that could be the case, but we still think these provisions are fine.''

Mr. Albas: But we are talking about concerns of the committee. We all have environmental concerns and concerns about issues when these things happen. But in terms of our reference, given the argument the department has made, I wonder how much farther down the road we can go with our argument. If it's lawful and reflected in the will of Parliament, what more can we do on this file?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's exactly the state the file is at: The committee has strongly taken the position that it is not lawful and not authorized, and the department has taken the position firmly that it is. So there we are.

Mr. Albas: What you're saying is that have to agree to disagree.

Mr. Bernhardt: At this point, the committee has options. It could report to the houses saying this is its view. In theory, it could recommend a disallowance of these provisions. We could try yet again to go back to the minister.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: According to the committee's view, is this a contravention of regulation or statute?

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee's view to this point is that the regulations are not authorized under the Fisheries Act.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: The regulations are contravening the statute?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: My apologies. I just received this package this morning and haven't read your entire analysis, so I'm sorry if I'm asking for repetition. From your explanation, the committee requested an answer from the department. We asked about oranges and they wrote back about rocks or maybe apples.

Is it the will of the committee to have the department actually answer the question that was asked? I know it's not common practice all the time, but I think it should be. From my understanding, this is about accountability and what they are doing.

If the regulations that the department has written are, in the view of this committee — and I know I'm a temporary new member — in contravention of the statute, I don't see what we as parliamentarians can do because we can't amend the statute. If we thought that the statute was erroneous, we could work to amend the legislation.

My suggestion would be, first, try and get them to actually answer the question. If the committee feels that's a waste of time or that the department will not answer the actual question as posed to them, then, second, can we have the minister follow up and actually get a real response?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: With regard to leaving the file and walking away from it, I would like to underline to our friends that this is a file that has been going on for many years.

I'm of the opinion that we either write to the minister, saying that maybe he should consult an outside legal adviser or ask the technocrats who disagree with our experts to come and explain their position.

The third option would be a disallowance.

There is the option of going further and explaining why they are operating under illegal regulations. Door one is write to the minister. Door two is that we ask the legal adviser of the department to come and explain to us how they can live with this regulation that is not legal.

Mr. Albas, what would be your opinion? We are not at the disallowance stage, but we should at least be pursuing the matter, not burying it, to make sure that they eventually know how to adopt past regulations.

Mr. Albas: I do appreciate your suggestions, and I'm going to come back to one of them in a moment.

One of the challenges we have here is that there is a difference of opinion. With all due respect to counsel, a legal opinion is a legal opinion until it is tested in court. You can't say that something is or isn't conclusive unless a judge says that's how it is and a judge rules that the regulations contravene the enabling statute.

We have the disagreement of our independent counsel thus far. But this is new information. They are saying there is a difference in the information they were providing us that allowed us to come to that position.

Now, if we were to look at disallowance, the problem is that what we would actually be doing is taking away, literally drawing off regulations that right now monitor deleterious substances put into the environment. I don't think any of us want to see that, either. To me, that's a non-option.

Perhaps we could write to the minister and see if the minister concurs with his departmental staff — because we are not dealing with the minister's office — and confirm that.

I have to say that I am less convinced of our previous position based on the new information. However, I do think verification is important, and I do take seriously the senator's suggestion that we write to the minister.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We have a couple of people suggesting writing to minister.

Mr. Garneau: I support that as well.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/92-609 — RADIO REGULATIONS, 1986, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 12E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): The next category is ''Reply Unsatisfactory (?)'' and Item 6. The relevant portion of the regulation in question states that at the CRTC's request the licencee must provide ''the information required by the most recent Station Self-assessment Report form issued by the Commission.'' However, this information is not prescribed by regulation; instead, it is an administrative form. The CRTC agreed to amend this many years ago. Now they contend it is currently before the CRTC for analysis and decision as part of a broader review.

Cynthia Kirkby, Counsel to the Committee: That is indeed what has happened. It is a matter of the required information not being specified by regulation but rather being set out in an administrative form.

The broadcast proposal has been included in the materials, but it bears noting that the committee was not satisfied the last time the CRTC suggested that this would be part of its three-year plan.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: As far as I'm concerned, since we're talking about an ongoing discussion since 1986 and if we go back to the last letter of June 2014, I know that they are very busy conducting all sorts of hearings, but I think a little bit of goodwill on their part would solve that problem. I would ask for a date as to when they are going to submit and correct the situation. This has been dragging on forever and ever. They seem to agree on the substance, but they never get to doing it. I would write a letter and say, ''Now that you have made up your mind, when are you going to make the changes and when can we expect you to take action?''

Senator Meredith: I concur with Senator Hervieux-Payette. The commission has agreed to insert the most recent station self-assessment, and I completely concur that it's time that we be forceful in writing to them to give us a date as to when this will be included so that this paragraph 9(3)(a) can be satisfied in terms of the public's demand for this.

I think we need to be forceful. I hate to see things be drawn out when they can be simplified. It's a matter of a timeline. If there is no response within the next couple of months or so, then we can take further action. I think it's something that can be simplified, and so I agree with writing back and ensuring that we get a succinct respond.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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 document, see Appendix F, p. 12F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 7 is under ''Part Action Promised.'' I think it is not a coincidence that we are right before Thanksgiving. I think that counsel maybe grouped together for this meeting all the instruments relating to chicken.

The good news is that amendments to resolve all but one of the long outstanding issues have now been promised, but on a less positive note, the Chicken Farmers continue to argue that it is necessary and appropriate that they have discretion to decide whether a licence will be suspended or revoked or an application rejected, even though conditions for a suspension, revocation or rejection do exist.

Mr. Bernhardt: As you indicated, there are no criteria for the exercise of any of those powers. In order to alleviate the risk of arbitrariness, the committee has always considered that in these types of situations there should be parameters placed on the discretion of public officials.

The Chicken Farmers are apparently of the view that it would not be possible to enumerate a definitive list of criteria, although this was never suggested, and they also refer to the possibility of judicial review and of the general principles of administrative law. These are the same arguments that they raised to try to justify not distinguishing between the conditions for suspending and revoking, that is, when you would suspend and when you would revoke. They have now accepted that that should be done.

It is a little frustrating that we are seeing the same arguments resurrected again. The fact that someone can go to court if they don't like how they've been subjected to a discretionary power is not really much of an answer. One would think it would be possible to enumerate, in a broad sense, the general considerations that will be taken into account when deciding when not to suspend a licence, revoke a licence or reject an application, even though the circumstances for suspension, revocation or rejection are present. This is routinely done in federal regulations and, of course, it ensures that people in identical circumstances are treated consistently.

If it's not contemplated that there will be situations in which a licence will not be suspended or revoked or an application will not be rejected, even though the conditions are met for those things, then the discretion is simply unnecessary and should be deleted. I would suggest that that be put to the Chicken Farmers again.

Finally, in connection with the amendments that have been promised, some of these involve the deletion of unnecessary definitions, so it might be advisable to get confirmation as to exactly what amendments are being contemplated.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Counsel is suggesting we write back.

Mr. Albas: I agree with writing back and confirming whether or not those other amendments will come.

When it comes to discretion, as I've said a few times, there are two schools of thought. One is that we pay people very well to make decisions on behalf of the public trust. However, I do think that in this case it would be helpful to narrow down the field to what that discretion and criteria could be. I don't think it needs to be an exhaustive list. As Mr. Bernhardt has pointed out quite rightly, many other pieces of federal regulation are able to do this while still establishing that anyone has a right to go to court any time they feel. They just have to argue the merits of their case.

In this case I feel comfortable supporting what counsel has suggested.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-18 — ORDER REPEALING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (SYRIA) PERMIT AUTHORIZATION ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 12G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 8 under ''Reply Unsatisfactory.'' An oversight was made on this order. Our counsel drew it to the attention of the department. The department has now drawn the oversight to the attention of the legislative drafters at Justice.

Ms. Kirkby: That's exactly the case. We were suggesting that this file could be closed and that we would continue to monitor to ensure that this type of omission didn't happen again in the future.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-151 — CANADA EDUCATION SAVINGS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 12H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 9 is under the heading ''Reply Unsatisfactory (?).'' Three amendments are being requested. The department has advised that the amendments ''will be part of the overall legislative and regulatory review'' and that once the review is completed, it ''will be in a better position to advise you with respect to regulatory changes (and in particular, the Committee's three requested regulatory amendments) that may be made.'' Counsel wonders if this provides our requested confirmation.

Ms. Kirkby: There's really nothing to add to that. That's exactly the situation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Just to confirm, are we agreed that the committee will write back seeking confirmation?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 12I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): The first item under the category ''Progress,'' which is always a good one, is No. 10. There's light at the end of what had been a very long tunnel. Our committee requested assurance that amendments for our outstanding concerns would be made by the end of this fiscal year. The Competition Bureau reports that it is ''confident'' that it will achieve this.

Ms. Kirkby: Our suggestion here was to follow up to confirm the progress and monitor to make sure it happens.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-668 — CANADA LABOUR STANDARDS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/2006-231 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA LABOUR STANDARDS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 12J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 11 under ''Progress,'' the department advises that the vast majority of our requested amendments will be part of a broad package of amendments pertaining to the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, scheduled to come out this fall. The remaining matter will be addressed following consultations in winter 2015.

Ms. Kirkby: In case it is of interest, the outstanding issue relates to amending certain terms in the French version of Schedule 1, just making sure that the language used in the schedule reflects that used in the affected establishments.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Does anyone have any comment?

Mr. Brown: I suggest that we write back.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): To clarify that position.

Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2009-315 — CANADA OIL AND GAS DRILLING AND PRODUCTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-316 — NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DRILLING AND PRODUCTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2009-317 — NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DRILLING AND PRODUCTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 12K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): In relation to Item 12 under ''Progress,'' it has taken some time, but due to the diligence of counsel and this committee, 113 amendments have been agreed to, which will be made late this year or early next. It's a big accomplishment.

Counsel?

Ms. Kirkby: I have nothing to add.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): What do committee members wish to do?

Mr. Albas: It seems to be well in hand. I reiterate your point about the amount of work well done thus far. Let's hope we can continue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): We'll just monitor the file.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 12L:1.)

SOR/2002-36 — CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 12M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Items 13 and 14 are under the heading ''Progress (?).'' Today I have learned that we have a lot of chicken regulations in Canada.

Our requested amendments regarding these files deal with a desire to have unnecessarily repeated definitions deleted. Counsel referred to the principle that legislation should contain only what is legally necessary.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. The question mark here is simply because the amendments originally were to be approved last November. The committee is now advised that there have been delays due to the need to add other amendments for the purpose of implementing market quota for specialty chicken. There is now no forecast time frame, so it might be worth writing to ask when the amendments are expected to be made. We also have the question of deleting the unnecessary definitions that the committee might want to firm up.

Mr. Albas: Actually, we should write back to confirm that what we asked for is actually going to be done. I hope that counsel would be able to do that.

I have a quick question. Madam Chair made reference earlier to the many chicken regulations we have in Canada. Have we also dealt with egg files?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Mr. Albas: Maybe counsel can answer the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Mr. Bernhardt: I can go back and do some research on that if you like, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Garneau: When writing back, is it reasonable for us to ask for a forecast of how long we are going to have to wait?

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Yes. That is a good suggestion.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-1 — RULES AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR BOARDS OF REVIEW

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 12N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 15 concerns a promised amendment to correct a drafting error that is to be pre-published at the beginning of 2015.

Ms. Kirkby: That one is under ''Progress (?)'' because we had a letter in July 2013 indicating that the promised amendments would be pre-published at the beginning of 2014. We have had a one-year delay without any particular explanation.

Senator Meredith: Will we just monitor this because they are supposed to give us a response by January 2015?

Ms. Kirkby: We can monitor and wait for a response.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-300 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FISH HEALTH PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 12O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 16 is under the heading ''Action Promised (?).'' We had two issues with these regulations. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans now advises that the entire Fish Health Protection Regulations will be repealed this year, so the department proposes not to make these amendments, although it does recognize our concerns.

Ms. Kirkby: The suggestion would be to confirm the time lines to make sure it is taking place in 2014.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Senator Meredith: To interject, as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the committee is undertaking a study on the aquaculture industry. Looking at fish health is one of the issues and how the industry is being monitored. In light of this, I'd like further clarification from counsel of what Madam Chair mentioned with respect to the repeal of the regulations.

Ms. Kirkby: The context has to do with interprovincial carrying permits for aquatic animals, as they are described in the letter. The regulations currently are separate and fall under the Fish Health Protection Regulations, but as a result of recent changes, they will be part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's new domestic disease control program. The idea is that it will then be part of other regulations. These will be redundant and will not make a change in the actual content.

Senator Meredith: Thanks for the clarification.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: I'm slightly very confused. I know there's an oxymoron in my statement there.

The Fish Health Protection Regulations are being completely repealed because they will become redundant when they fall under another department. Sorry, which other department will be in charge of fish health?

Ms. Kirkby: The program will be under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: Do the Fish Health Protection Regulations monitor only the health of fish that are used for human consumption, or is it aquatic life in general? Is it only fish used for human food? I assume the CFIA only considers food for human consumption.

Mr. Bernhardt: As I understand it, the focus of these regulations is on the safety of fish so that the fish are safe for human consumption. It deals with escapes into the wild, transfers of species from one province to another, imports of fish products, et cetera. The focus is not so much from the point of view of fish stocks or the environment but safety for the purpose of preserving human health and safety.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: Are we certain that these regulations are about that?

Mr. Bernhardt: I'm working from the regulatory impact analysis statement, which contains that description. There has been significant, new legislation. The Safe Food for Canadians Act will require that a lot of regulations pertaining to various aspects of food, agriculture and aquaculture be replaced and rolled into the new act, and this will be one piece of that.

That's why there is a question mark in terms of action promised. The department is not actually promising to fix the regulations; rather, they are saying that these regulations will disappear shortly. If there are issues in the new regulations, it will be down the road for the committee to deal with them.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: Are they saying that soon it will not be their problem?

Mr. Bernhardt: In a sense, yes. By the time they process amendments, which takes a certain amount of time, the regulations will have disappeared anyway. Assuming the timeline holds, which is the end of year, it seems to make no sense to insist on amendments in the interim because in two or three months the regulations will be completely gone.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan: Since it's under ''Action Promised (?),'' I wonder if we should monitor progress in the new department as to how these regulations are formed and what these new regulations within the CFIA actually stipulate. I would assume that if we're going to stop monitoring something or assume that the action promised actually has been promised, that they are strengthened. They have to be better than what exists for it to be all right. If you're going to pass the buck, that's fine, but at least it has to be stronger or of the same quality and counsel can monitor what is happening at the CFIA afterward.

Senator Meredith: If I may interject, the aquaculture industry is looking to have separate legislation to govern how they operate in Canada and to deal with the health of fish such that if any of these fish escape into the wild, they will not impact on the regular stock of fish and those who fish recreationally. It is important to note that this is a growing industry.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for inspecting foods that Canadians will consume. However, we're looking at this comprehensive new piece of legislation or regulations that will be implemented to govern the aquaculture industry. Some of these regulations will coincide with what the CFIA will be actually looking at.

I wanted you to know that we are currently undertaking a study on the situation. Again, food health, food safety and the health of fish are part of what the Senate committee is studying.

Mr. Albas: This is a great discussion and I would like to reiterate that we monitor.

I would like to mention to members that all directives, orders and regulations are permanently referred to the committee. So we are monitoring everything all at once, and we just bring up items as they come up.

I want to point out that in the packages counsel provided us, on page 2832, near the back, it gives the amendments that were put in place. But the RIAS, the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, that Mr. Bernhardt mentioned is also a layperson's read of what the regulations set to do, the rationale for implementing them, as well as the consultation that will carry on. I find these to be very helpful.

Those are just comments in support of the process going forward and also to make use of the materials we have. They are excellent.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2013-105 — ORDER AMENDING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (SOUTH SLAVE REGION) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 12P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 17 under ''Action Promised'' concerns an English-French wording issue that the department now promises to rectify if this order needs to be amended or renewed.

Ms. Kirkby: Yes, that's correct. I wanted to provide the background that these types of orders tend to apply for a period of two years, so the committee has generally been responsive to the suggestion that they will be corrected when it is either renewed or modified, given the timeline.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Does anyone have anything further? Are you suggesting that we close the file?

Ms. Kirkby: Just monitor to see if it gets renewed or modified to make sure the problem is addressed at that point.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Does anyone have anything further? Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2014-35 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (SOUTH SLAVE AND NORTH SLAVE REGIONS) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 12Q:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 18 is similar to the last one. Is there anything further, counsel?

Ms. Kirkby: I would suggest the same as the last one. Certain words were included in the French version of the heading to Schedule 1 and not in the English.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2014-39 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (CENTRAL AND EASTERN PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH SLAVE REGION) ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 12R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): No. 19 under ''Action Promised'': Counsel questioned the utility of the inclusion of one particular sentence in this order. Again, the department agrees to revoke if the order is amended or renewed.

Mr. Anders: Close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 12S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): The next three instruments are part of Item 20 under ''Action Promised.'' With regard to the reply from the Farm Products Council, it seems that it was almost identical to another matter we have already discussed; maybe it was even the same letter. I will let counsel elaborate if there are further distinctions we need to be aware of.

Mr. Bernhardt: No. Again, the issue here is the deletion of the unnecessary definitions. Once more, it might be worth firming up exactly what they intend to do.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): So write back to the Farm Products Council. Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-90 — ORDER AMENDING THE EXPORT CONTROL LIST

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 12T:1.)

SOR/2014-102 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEAWAY PROPERTY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 12U:1.)

SOR/2014-142 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix V, p. 12V:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Items 21, 22 and 23 all relate to matters where action has been taken.

Mr. Bernhardt: I would simply note for the record, Madam Chair, that taken cumulatively they resolve 30 concerns raised by the committee.

The one I might highlight is SOR/2014-102. As members will see from the short note accompanying the materials, it resolves fairly substantive matters dealing with provisions that infringed on individual rights to free speech, peaceful assembly and free association, extension of liability for offences to people other than those who may have committed the offence, unauthorized creation of offences, and unauthorized imposition of civil liability and liability for expenses. I think those are significant and very good results for the committee.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Very good work.

SI/2014-23 — REMISSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF FEES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF PERMANENT RESIDENT CARDS (ALBERTA)

SI/2014-24 — REMISSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS, CERTIFICATES OF IDENTITY AND REFUGEE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS IN RELATION TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DIED FOLLOWING THE LAC-MÉGANTIC EXPLOSION IN QUEBEC

SI/2014-25 — REMISSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF FEES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF PERMANENT RESIDENT CARDS AND THE ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS, CERTIFICATES OF IDENTITY AND REFUGEE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS (LAC-MÉGANTIC, QUEBEC)

SI/2014-46 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2014-47 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTION 44 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2014-48 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS MADE AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTION 45 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2014-49 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-51 — ORDER FIXING JULY 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2014-52 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 31, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH DIVISION 5 OF PART 3 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2014-53 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 13, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH DIVISION 20 OF PART 4 OF THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SOR/2005-126 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (FILM AND VIDEO PRODUCTION)

SOR/2005-264 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (DEFERRED INCOME PLANS)

SOR/2009-302 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (OMNIBUS, NO. 1)

SOR/2014-81 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (UNIVERSITIES OUTSIDE CANADA)

SOR/2014-118 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (MOTOR VEHICLE EXPENSES AND BENEFITS 2014)

SOR/2014-119 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, NO. 2014-1 (BEECHER BAY)

SOR/2014-120 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION REGULATIONS (CANADIAN FORCES)

SOR/2014-121 — EXPIRY OF SECTION 12.2 OF THE SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006 REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-123 — ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER DECLARING AN AMNESTY PERIOD (2006)

SOR/2014-129 — ORDER 2014-87-04-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2014-132 — ORDER ADDING THE GLOOSCAP FIRST NATION TO THE SCHEDULE TO THE MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT

SOR/2014-146 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN BROILER HATCHING EGG MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

Mr. Bernhardt: Finally, I note for the record that there are 22 statutory instruments without comment.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Thank you very much, everyone. For clarification, the ''Action Taken'' files are simply closed files.

Our next meeting will be on October 23, right after the break. Does anyone have anything to add?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Yes. I would like to thank our new chair for the excellent job she did in handling affairs.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We would have been done a little earlier, but there were too many chickens.

(The committee adjourned.)

---