---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 13 - Evidence - November 6, 2014

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, November 6, 2014

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:31 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

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

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Good morning, everybody. First let me thank you for being so understanding two weeks ago when we cancelled this meeting on rather short notice. I'm delighted to see all of you well and here. As you can imagine, for our clerk to try to give notice to all of you was challenging, and I'm glad it all worked out the way it did.

SOR/2013-87 — MARKETING AUTHORIZATION FOR MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS FOR VETERINARY DRUGS IN FOODS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 13A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 1 on our agenda is under the heading ''Letters To and From Ministers.'' This was an item delayed from the fall of 2014, and we're now being told that we can expect action sometime in 2015.

Counsel?

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: Thank you, Madam Chair. That's correct. As members will recall, the situation here is that under the Food and Drugs Act there is a prohibition against selling foods that are adulterated. There is an exemption, then, in the regulations for foods that contain residues of certain veterinary drugs as long as the amount does not exceed the maximum limit. The regulations set out a table that has the maximum limit for various drugs in various foods.

The Food and Drugs Act has been amended now to authorize the minister to issue marketing authorizations, and those authorizations can incorporate, by reference, any document, regardless of its source and as it's amended from time to time.

Pursuant to this power, the minister has issued a marketing authorization for maximum residue limits for veterinary drugs in foods, and that authorization incorporates the department's list of maximum residue limits. The table in the regulations is, therefore, to be repealed.

This has yet to take place and, moreover, there are discrepancies between the list that's incorporated into the new marketing authorization and the existing table in the Food and Drug Regulations. Both of these currently have the force of law.

The department seems to be in no hurry to resolve it. It seems content to allow the situation to stand until the regulations are eventually amended to delete the table. At one point, that was to be done in the fall of 2013.

The committee made the suggestion that, in the interim, these discrepancies should be resolved. The department didn't seem willing to do that. I think the committee has always wondered why the table wasn't simply revoked at the same time the marketing authorization was made. That would have solved all of the problems. Nevertheless, this is the situation that the committee has encountered.

The committee suggested to the minister that the amendments to the regulations should proceed at once. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, the department replied, in its last letter, that it expected the amendment removing the table to be pre-published this fall. As the note explains, more recently we have been told by the department, in connection with another file, that this is now not expected to happen until 2015.

The department's letter of July 22 also acknowledges that there are discrepancies between the list incorporated in the new marketing authorization and the table in the regulations. With regard to the particular example noted in the joint chairs' letter to the minister, it does say that this should be resolved as quickly as possible. It gives no indication as to how these discrepancies are being dealt with as a matter of practice in the interim.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Comments on this file?

Senator Meredith: The recommendation was to write back to the minister. When we do write back to the minister, we're looking to see how we can expedite the repeal of this table.

Given the information that has come to our attention and the recommendation on page 2 that that be expedited, I don't think we should wait until 2015. They can give us a quicker answer.

Mr. Bélanger: Madam Chair, you may recall that I've raised a number of times that there might be an occasion where it would be useful for the committee to convene witnesses so that we could ask questions of the witnesses themselves. I'm just wondering if this might not be such an occasion to have the representatives of the department here, who would explain why it is that they're not correcting the situation, why it's being delayed and so forth. It might put a little more pressure on them to actually get things done. I'm not proposing it yet, but I'm wondering if my colleagues around the table think that this would be an occasion where such a manner of acting might help to resolve the situation.

[Translation]

Ms. Quach: I agree with writing the letter. I would like to know about the risks involved in leaving gaps between the list and the tables of products that are to be repealed or not repealed for those who deal with those products, and then about the authorization and use of the products. If we do not succeed in getting a response to these letters once again, I would agree with Mr. Bélanger that we should have people from the department come here so that we can finally get some answers.

[English]

Mr. Albas: I appreciate all of the work that our counsel has done on this particular file. While members may have questions on the specifics of why things are the way they are today, I do think our job is to try to focus on what positive change we can bring. The good senator has brought forward a suggestion of writing to the minister, which is above the level of the officials that we are currently dealing with, and has suggested that we seek either an expedited process for the repeal or, at the very least, duplication of the tables so that there is no differentiation between the two. I think that is reasonable, and I would suggest that while there may be a case where witnesses might be an option, we should just be bringing it to the minister's attention to try to get results as quickly as possible.

Personally, I don't want to take 45 minutes of what is usually a 1.5-hour meeting for one file, considering how many files we have and considering that this is the meeting we were supposed to have two weeks ago. We have a lot of pending case files that need to be finished, so hopefully we can agree that getting the letter to the minister is probably the fastest method here.

[Translation]

Ms. Quach: I would just like to correct one point. People often say that we do not have a lot of time during committee meetings. In theory, committee meetings last two hours and we actually always finish after about an hour and 15 minutes. So, in theory, we supposedly have two hours of work.

I do not see why we could not arrange appearances by people connected with the files that are dragging on and for which we need answers. Of course, the intent is not to have people appearing all the time, but when it is useful and relevant and can move files forward, we should take that opportunity, especially when our meetings are scheduled for two hours but do not last the full two hours.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Seeing no other interventions, I think I heard that we will write a letter to the minister at this point.

Mr. Bélanger, you said you weren't putting a motion on the table at the moment to call witnesses. Is there agreement?

Mr. Bélanger: Madam Chair, I think that if I did, the motion could be carried right now. I'd like members to take note of that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): All right. The chair will try to move beyond hypotheticals and read a consensus around sending a letter for the moment. Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Counsel is asking whether, in the letter to the minister, we might want to ask how the department would proceed if there were a discrepancy that they were to encounter right now. Given the current state, it seems like a reasonable question to include in the letter. Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Bélanger: Could we also ask in the letter for a fairly rapid response? I'm not insinuating that the minister is in any way responsible for it, but the department has not been forthcoming and therefore a rapid response would be useful.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I think that's reasonable and in keeping with what Senator Meredith said. He did ask for an expedited response.

Mr. Albas: I would like to reiterate that any time a parliamentary committee writes a letter to the minister, the idea is, especially if we've been asking for an expedited process, it's inherent in it. I don't think we need to set a deadline, other than to say there is a concern raised by the committee.

SOR/98-465 — REGULATIONS PRESCRIBING EXCLUSIONS FROM CERTAIN DEFINITIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITION HANDGUNS)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Move on to Item 2 under the heading ''Reconsideration,'' these regulations deal with international sporting competition handguns. Counsel, on behalf of our committee, sent a letter in October 2012 with respect to aspects of the regulations that appear to have become outdated.

Counsel, do you have an update for us?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernhardt: No. This document was presented to the committee as a statutory instrument without comment in 2001. In 2012, it was noted that the regulations seemed to be out of date in a number of respects. We tried to get the Department of Justice's opinion, but they did not reply to the letter of October 5, 2012.

[English]

Senator Runciman: This issue strikes me as a pretty serious matter in a number of ways, but also the fact the committee is essentially being ignored by this senior official in the Justice ministry, Ms. Glushek. I think that for consideration, obviously, the joint chairs should send a letter to the minister, but I think we should also consider incorporating in that letter our concerns with respect to this individual.

I think it's a slap in the face to the committee. This is a joint parliamentary committee. In terms of her individual failure to respond, it's approaching two years. The initial correspondence goes back two years, but in terms of Ms. Glushek's involvement on this, it's approaching two years. I think it's a serious matter. Whether we want to raise the individual's name or not, I think we can say a senior official within the ministry has been essentially ignoring this committee and its very serious concerns for close to two years.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): A letter will be sent to that effect.

SOR/2001-281 — BY-LAW NO. 7 RESPECTING THE LARGE VALUE TRANSFER SYSTEM

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 13B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 3 under ''Reply Unsatisfactory.'' There are two issues here. The first is section 63 of the bylaw where the department disagreed with committee concerns but has failed to explain why. The second issue is that we still haven't been told when amendments to section 51 of the bylaw will be forthcoming.

Counsel?

Shawn Abel, Counsel to the Committee: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To remind members of the function of this bylaw and how it works, it sets out the operation of the clearing and settlement systems for large value payments or time-critical payments between financial institutions and the rights and responsibilities of those institutions to use the system.

Unfortunately, as the chair outlined, the file has not advanced since members reviewed it in February. Not for the first time, counsel conveyed the committee's consideration that the broad power granted to the President of the Canadian Payments Association under section 63 should be subject to some criteria governing the discretion provided there.

Currently, the president of the association has bare discretion to decide that section 63 should not apply to a participant institution of the Large Value Transfer System when that institution would otherwise be suspended for being non-viable.

The Department of Finance previously argued that subsection 5(2) of the Canadian Payments Act sufficiently limits the discretion in this context. The statutory provision provides that the association shall promote the efficiency, safety and soundness of its clearing and settlement systems and take into account the interests of users.

The committee previously found this to be a little too broad and vague for this specific case. This was particularly so because the department also indicated that it expects the president to exempt a participant from being suspended when doing so could have ''negative repercussions on the operation of the clearing systems.'' The committee therefore considered that this more specific and objective criterion should be set out in the bylaw.

As members noted in February, it took some two and a half years for the Department of Finance to provide any kind of definitive reply, which amounted to simply a statement that it still holds the same position it did previously and without any further explanation.

In addition, the committee was assured that its views would be taken into account. Considering the lack of agreement, it was unclear what this meant, so another request for further explanation was sought. The reply before members today provides nothing new except to suggest that adding the suggested criterion onto section 63 would be redundant with the act.

This is contrary to the department's earlier assertion that the same criterion would be inconsistent with the act.

I may have messed that up. Did I say inconsistent twice?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I think we understood what you meant, though.

Mr. Abel: To be clear, the latest reply suggests that it would be redundant with the act. The previous reply suggested it would be inconsistent with the act. Obviously, both can't be true. The latter suggestion that it would be inconsistent was not convincing to members previously, and this was because it was the department's own description of how the president should act. Of course, it seems preposterous that the president should be expected by the department to act in a manner inconsistent with the act.

What's left is essentially an impossibility between the two explanations. It seems clear that the department has no desire to further elaborate, especially after some two to three years of trying to get further explanations.

As the chair also mentioned, there has been no further information concerning when the promised amendment to section 51 of the bylaw will be forthcoming. That's where the matter stands now.

Mr. Albas: At risk of being inconsistent and redundant myself on a regular basis, I do actually agree that we need to see some resolve. First of all, I think we should write back to the department, particularly on the amendment to section 51, to determine a time frame. That does need to be made clear.

With regard to the main section, section 63, I agree with counsel. They have given a very clear ''must be able to exercise this power if the suspension of a participant could have negative repercussions on the operation of the Canadian Payment's Association's clearing system.'' This does add an objective set of criteria where the president can utilize that discretion so that there is some objective criteria, and it's applied fairly and to all. I simply suggest we write back and reiterate our position.

I find it quite interesting that they would take two separate arguments that go in two different directions and that still don't actually answer our question. I think we should continue to press on with this.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Moore: Mr. Albas, are you suggesting we write back to this lady, Sandra Hassan, or do we go above her?

Mr. Albas: We have a very valid argument. If we don't get anywhere, then we should continue to raise it up the flagpole.

Senator Moore: Okay. We could go back to her.

Mr. Albas: I believe we have a compelling argument.

Senator Moore: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 13C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 4, the Farm Products Council of Canada reneged on at least one and perhaps two of its promised amendments.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. This proclamation provides the authority for all the other chicken marketing regulations before the committee at the last meeting. It probably should have been submitted together with those. I apologize for the fact that it was separated out.

As you've indicated, a number of amendments were promised. It appeared that agreement on all of those was reached. Now, however, the Farm Products Council is reneging on one and perhaps two of those amendments. They concern section 9 of the schedule to the proclamation and section 12.1 of the schedule.

The committee concluded that section 9 is unlawful. The Governor-in-Council has the power to designate any of the powers in section 22 of the act that the Chicken Farmers of Canada do not have. Section 9 purports to specify how the remaining powers are to be exercised.

The committee apparently managed to get the council to accept the committee's arguments. However, in its latest letter it states that it's no longer considering repealing section 9. Members no doubt will know that this is not the first time either the council or the Chicken Farmers have reversed or re-reversed their commitments to the committee.

Section 12.1 of the schedule to the proclamation seeks to authorize the Chicken Farmers to establish the time at which fees, levies and charges become debts payable, which is already dealt with in the act itself. If what's in the act isn't suitable, the solution is not to ignore it but to ask Parliament to amend the act.

Eventually, the council stated it would be advisable to amend section 36 of the act and indicated it would suggest also an amendment to the wording of section 12.1 of the schedule to the proclamation. Here, too, discussions with the Chicken Farmers seem to have come to a standstill. The FPC states now that it will respond to the committee's comments concerning section 12.1 ''when the Proclamation is amended in a few months' time.'' In other words, the Farm Products Council will tell the committee what it thinks after it has already made the changes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): We had a promise, and the message is don't count your chickens. Is there any comment?

Mr. Anders: It sounds to me, obviously, like some writing back is involved. I'm wading through the details of it.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): You think we should write back to the Farm Products Council; is that the recommendation?

Mr. Albas: We've already tried to work with the Farm Products Council, so perhaps we should write directly to the Chicken Farmers of Canada. I'm quite concerned, Madam Chair, as we continue to get push-back from this particular agency. They have responsibilities under their mandate to be responsive to Parliament. We're the ones who have given them the authority. We should write back to them directly, particularly on section 9 and possibly on section 12.1 of the proclamation, to tell them that we would like to see the changes made.

For the record, I have publicly said before that I think they're spending a lot of their members' money on continuing to use lawyers to make arguments, for example, references to the Pelland case, that don't actually refer to our concerns with the proclamation and its being ultra vires. I would hope they would get the message from this letter that they need to step up and address the committee's concerns in a quick and efficient manner.

Mr. Bélanger: Would we include in the letter that it would not be appropriate for them to proclaim before advising us about what they intend to do about section 12.1?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I'm reading a consensus on Mr. Albas's recommendation that we write to the Chicken Farmers as opposed to Mr. Anders' suggestion that we write to the council. Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

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

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

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

(For text of document, see Appendix D, p. 13D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 5 deals with four sets of amendments to regulations under the heading ''Reply Unsatisfactory (?).'' The committee had received agreement from the Department of Finance to amend the regulations in keeping with our recommendations initially, but now the department appears to have changed its mind.

Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. The issue was the difference, if any, between ''clearing agent'' and ''clearing agency.'' The department originally agreed to make an amendment to use the term ''clearing agent'' because that term is referred to in the parent act. It doesn't use ''clearing agency'' at all.

In its latest letter, the department is of the view that there is a distinction between ''clearing agent'' and ''clearing agency.'' It seems to suggest that rather than there being any inherent distinction in the terms themselves, the difference lies in how and where the two terms are used in the regulations and in the act. In the act, ''clearing agent,'' they say, has a specific meaning relating to arrangements between a direct and indirect clearer. In the regulations, ''clearing agency'' is broader as a category of financial intermediary to encompass everyone who holds a securities or a futures account.

The department concludes by stating that read in the context of eligible margin loans, the term ''clearing agency'' is broader and distinct and that this distinction is well understood by industry.

Be that as it may, I'm not really sure the department has managed to explain that distinction clearly at all. The fact remains that only ''clearing agent'' appears in the act. The use of the term ''clearing agency'' in the regulations could be taken to mean something else other than the clearing agent is intended. That's a fairly subtle distinction that could easily be lost on people. On top of that, despite the explanation the department has tried to give, the true distinction between the two terms is still far from clear.

It remains open to the committee, if that's the feeling of members, to decide that if there is a distinction between the two terms and if it's necessary to use both, then ''clearing agency'' ought to be defined in the regulations in order to make it clear to everybody exactly what the department intends by the distinction.

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

Mr. Albas: Counsel has done a good job of explaining the difference between the two, particularly on page 3 at the last paragraph, which clearly defines what it is.

This is not a partisan issue at all but simply adds clarity so that a new entrant into a market will know their responsibilities and obligations under the law. It should not be necessarily left for people to interpret on their own. I would simply point out that we should write back and again press to see these changes made.

Paragraph 3 states:

Only the term ''clearing agent'' appears in the Act under which the Regulations are made.

Again, to be using duplicative or inconsistent terms doesn't seem to add clarity.

[Translation]

Mr. Pilon: I do not know how it is in English, but, in French, there is a very big difference between an ''agent'' and an ''agence.'' An ''agent'' is a physical person; an ''agence'' would be more like an office, or something like that. We really need to clarify the difference in French between ''agent'' and ''agence.''

[English]

Mr. Albas: That being said, Madam Chair, the department could put the definition in, which would address the member's concern. However, we should ask them again either to codify which term they are to use consistently or to add the other definition so everyone is 100 per cent clear about what their obligations are.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I think we had agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: I would like to know to whom we are writing.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Were you making a suggestion?

Mr. Albas: I did make the suggestion that we write back to the department because we're still at the level where we've only received one reply.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Yes, but to whom? To the same person?

[English]

Mr. Albas: Yes.

Mr. Bélanger: You wouldn't be interested in going to the DM level?

Mr. Albas: The DM will probably send it back to this official.

Mr. Bélanger: Yes. I'm not sure who the DM is, but at least he or she would be aware that there's a slight ripple going on.

Mr. Albas: At the end of the day, we expect the department to reply. We've gotten a ''reply unsatisfactory'' from our original inquiry. Typically, we'd go back and press them on it, and if we still get the same kind of response, we can raise it to another level. That's how we've always operated. I feel, in this case, that that's the appropriate course to take.

Mr. Bélanger: I'd like the DM to be made aware. If I can get a copy of the letter, I'll send it to the DM myself.

An Hon. Member: Sure.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.

Senator Meredith: I agree that we should write back, but in the interests of time, we should alert the DM as well in the process of writing back, rather than having them kick it back to us and then us having to write back again to move it up the ladder.

Mr. Albas: As a reminder to my colleagues, if you send it to the DM, it goes to the DM's office. It sits in a tray there. Eventually, they'll say, ''Who should get this?'' They will then send it to the person that we are going to be sending to. We're actually adding more time.

This is the person who is the default connection or liaison between our committee and the department, so I would suggest that we just send it directly. I understand Mr. Bélanger's concern about wanting to raise it so that the DM knows about it. That's his prerogative. However, this is the most efficient way we have to get a reply.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Mr. Breitkreuz?

Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Albas has already addressed my concern.

Senator Meredith: CC the DM in the process.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I think we are agreed that one way or another the deputy minister will get a copy of the letter, so why don't we just cc them?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 13E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 6 is another unsatisfactory reply. This one will enhance Mr. Albas's warm fuzzies for the Farm Products Council. This time the Farm Products Council simply forwarded our concerns to the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers for some vague and future consideration.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. This is the file on which, after long and hard work and argument, the committee finally convinced the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers to take out of the regulations definitions that simply repeated definitions in the proclamation. That was obviously unnecessary because those definitions would apply in any event.

Unfortunately, that was then replaced with subsection 2(2) of the regulations, which states that the definitions in the proclamation apply to the regulations. Well, if it's unnecessary to repeat the definitions because that would be the case in any event, it's equally unnecessary to put in a provision that states that. The committee then took the view that subsection 2(2) should be deleted.

Arguments to the contrary were advanced for the reasons set out in detail in the note. The committee found those arguments to be without merit.

Following the last consideration of the file by the committee, the Farm Products Council was told that it was the view of the committee that a justification for subsection 2(2) had not been provided and that the provision should be removed from the regulations.

The reply from the Farm Products Council simply advises that it has forwarded the committee's comments to the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers for their consideration.

I should note, as well, the concluding comment in the Farm Products Council's letter:

We continue to work towards and support initiatives to reduce regulatory red tape and continue to encourage National Agencies to draft orders and regulations in such a manner that Canadian farmers can understand their obligations without having to refer to multiple statutory instruments.

I would point out that stating that terms in one piece of legislation have the same meaning as in another piece of legislation in no way means that you will still not have to read both pieces of legislation.

I'd also simply add, perhaps by way of an editorial comment, that I'm not sure what any of this has to do with reducing red tape.

Mr. Albas: I certainly appreciate counsel's work on this file. I do believe that we should write directly to the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers because we need to focus our efforts on them and let them know that section 2(2) needs to be amended. I believe we have a very credible argument. If we want to cc the farm council, that's fine. However, I would point out that when the farm council says, ''We continue to work towards and support initiatives to reduce regulatory red tape and continue to encourage National Agencies to draft orders and regulations in such a manner . . . ,'' if they're not part of the solution, they aren't doing enough to solve the problem.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-141 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE OIL AND GAS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 13F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 7 on our agenda, some of these issues and the amendments that we're dealing with have been kicking around as far back as 1988, and yet we still can't get from the Department of Employment and Social Development any sense of concrete timing about when amendments will be made.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. One of these amendments was identified in 1988. An amendment was promised. It was then left out of amendments that were made in 1994. After waiting another 20 years, it has again been inadvertently left out of amendments that were made earlier this year.

The other two amendments were promised after that. They don't go back quite that far, but they were also inadvertently left out of the recent package of amendments.

The department now advises that it still intends to make the amendments, but the revision of all of these provisions has policy implications. It will require stakeholder consultations. This will be part of a complete review of Part XVI of the regulations. The department is not in a position to provide a time frame, but it does note that it has put the revision in its Forward Regulatory Plan for 2014-16.

I should note that the three matters the committee is waiting for would clarify provisions, correct an incomplete reference in the English version to an incorporated standard, and resolve an inconsistency in the format of the two versions of Schedule IV to Part XVII. These are hardly the most substantive or controversial of amendments.

Mr. Clarke: I finished high school about that time, two years later. Some of my other colleagues were probably still in diapers when the request was started. What I'm requesting is that we write back to say that promised amendments be made separately.

Mr. Bélanger: Write back to whom?

Mr. Clarke: Write back to the department.

[Translation]

Mr. Pilon: I would like to know whether there is a way that we can be assured that it will be done this time. Is there a way, or do we have to keep trusting them as we wait perhaps another 20 years? Is there no way to make sure that, this time, the corrections will be made? We really have to set a deadline this time.

Mr. Bélanger: The question that concerns me is knowing who we are writing to. If we just go back to the same source, we are simply going to continue the same back-and-forth. In my opinion, that will get us nowhere. Who in the department are we writing to? Is it the person who has always been responsible for this file, or is it the deputy minister? Is it possible to write to the minister? Listen, 1988 was a long time ago. Frankly, these people are showing no respect for this parliamentary committee. I think we should be dealing with someone a little higher up.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Higher up the department or to the minister?

Mr. Bélanger: I'm asking.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Quach: Would it not serve as a good example to have the people from the department appear here to answer our questions, because this file has been dragging on for 20 years now? We are having difficulty getting an answer and it is important for us to get one. It seems to me that it would be helpful to have them appear now.

[English]

Mr. Clarke: We are talking about how long it has been. I'm not quite familiar with the Indian Act going back to 1876. We're still waiting for clarification from back then. Let's make it simple and write a letter to the minister asking for clarification. That would probably make Mr. Bélanger happy.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: To the minister. That is better. I would accept that for now.

[English]

Senator D. Smith: We might even put in a deadline saying that if this isn't dealt with within the next six months or one year, we will be asking the deputy minister to attend the committee and explain why.

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

Mr. Albas: We've just raised this from the officials. We don't know what the response of the minister is. I know this particular minister is very hard-working, very diligent, respects parliamentary committees. Before we start coming down with fire and brimstone, why don't we simply raise the committee's concerns and see what the minister himself has to say in this regard?

Mr. Bélanger: I agree.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): All right. We'll write a letter to the minister and hope for quick action.

SOR/2003-196 — NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 13G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 8 falls under the heading ''Part Action Promised.'' An amendment has now been promised. There was one outstanding item. The department has now promised that an amendment would be made, but there has been no time frame given to us about this or any of the other amendments to which the department had previously agreed.

Mr. Abel: That's the gist of it, Madam Chair.

For benefit of members, I would mention that the latest amendment now promised deals with discretion granted to the minister. It clarifies that the minister is the one granted that discretion and expressly sets out guidelines as to how the discretion will be determined. Currently those guidelines are only found in a non-binding administrative document.

There was also an incidental matter. The department made a comment in the previous round of correspondence that it was currently only focusing on changes within their existing regulatory authority. Members did not know exactly what that was supposed to mean. The department now confirms all of the promised amendments will fall squarely within that authority, so there's not much to be made of that comment.

As the chair said, at this point we're left with a bunch of promised amendments but no time frame.

Mr. Albas: I think we should write back. I should note that we have a very good working relationship with Health Canada. They seem to take this committee's concerns into account on a regular basis. That being said, we have an outstanding point that still needs to be answered and we need to get a clear timeline. I think we should write back asking for those things.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2007-87 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, III, VI AND VII)

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 13H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 9. Counsel has met with Transport Canada on this file and is able to give us an update on where action is, or is not, being taken.

Mr. Bernhardt: There were 45 points initially raised, and 17 that deal with drafting and consistency between French and English versions were to be addressed by amendments that were expected to be made over the summer. These seem to have been postponed until later this year.

One other promised correction to be made is part of another package of amendments that's being prepared. There were 22 points concerning provisions that relate to certification and compliance with administrative manuals. These are to be studied as part of a certification review project that's to begin later this fiscal year. Consequently, responses on the substance of those may still be a ways off.

There are amendments promised on three other points without any details as to timing, so a time frame for those could perhaps be sought.

That left only points 13 and 34 in the correspondence.

We would suggest the latest explanation in connection with point 13 that's provided in the department's September 8 letter can be considered satisfactory, no further action required.

As for point 24, some clarification was sought as to the promised amendment and whether it would resolve the committee's concerns. It appears that indeed it would, although again we have no time frame for that amendment. That could be sought as well.

I should add that since the materials were published, we have arranged another meeting with Transport officials for tomorrow. In lieu of writing back to the department, we can ask these questions in person tomorrow, if that's the wish of the committee.

Senator Runciman: That seems like an appropriate way to go.

Looking at the analysis on the slope indicator system, are you comfortable with the ambiguity about optional or mandatory, or should we get something in writing with respect to that? How would you approach that issue, the slope indicator system where they said that visual approach was optional?

Mr. Bernhardt: They've explained that they mean you don't need to have that system, but if you do have it, you must meet these requirements. The amendment they're proposing is simply to make that clear. It's not clear now that the intent is to be optional, but if you take advantage of that option, there are requirements you have to meet.

Senator Runciman: They made a commitment to do that. I think the meeting will be satisfactory and meet our needs.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Probably the quickest way to get answers. Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2000-328 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 13I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to ''Part Action Taken,'' Item 9 concerns amendments to the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. We're being told that outstanding amendments are to be made, although the department has not provided a time frame.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernhardt: Exactly. The situation here is similar to the one in Item 7 on the agenda. Some promised amendments have still been omitted from the recent regulations. In this case, however, the committee has been waiting for a decade.

[English]

Mr. Breitkreuz: It's only a decade? Wow. I've been here for a long time.

I don't understand why they can't give us some indication as to when they might be able to come up with this. We're just looking for some simple definitions on wilderness area, remote workplace, things like that. They say it's a priority and they're going to deal with it soon. I really would like to see us write back and get a firm commitment from them. Ten years and they can't do it? I think it's time they acted.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): We have two outstanding items with the department. You'll recall that we had a similar issue with Item 7, where we were going to seek clarification with respect to the timeline. Why don't we just combine the two in the same letter because we have the same request?

Mr. Breitkreuz: I think that's a good suggestion. Maybe counsel can advise us if that would be appropriate? It would work?

Senator D. Smith: You might say that given the fact you haven't dealt with this in 10 years, this committee finds it hard to believe you're taking it seriously and you need to.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-222 — ORDER 2013-87-10-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 13J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 11 under ''Reply Satisfactory,'' Environment Canada has now confirmed that section 87(2) of CEPA should have been cited as the enabling authority to remove a substance from the Domestic Substances List.

Mr. Abel: That's correct. As it relates to the Domestic Substances List, the committee had previously raised concerns, more than once, about the correct citations being added in the recommendation preceding the orders. They were not done in this order, and the department confirms that they should have been.

The committee had also raised previous concerns and obtained a commitment by the department that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement would explain in more detail the reasons for deletions. That was also not done in this case and was not mentioned in the department's reply.

As an incidental matter, I'd also note that going into the future the department has indicated that it has determined that certain other deletions done as part of name changes should be done with the citation of subsection 66(1) of the act, and that seems satisfactory.

What we're left with at this point is simply that the department hasn't talked about the fact that the RIAS in this case did not mention the deletions and provide an explanation. I'm in members' hands as to whether we should be follow up on this file, or if members prefer we can simply monitor future orders with an eye to that concern.

Mr. Kent: Given that the DG indicated that in future the appropriate procedures will be followed and that subsection 87(2) will be cited, I would suggest that we close the file.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Why put this file under the heading of reply satisfactory if two of the conditions have not been met?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: We concluded from reading it that while they haven't given the explanation on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, it doesn't actually form part of the regulations and that the new information they've provided, namely, that they will be distinguishing in future when amendments are made under sections 87 and 66, will pretty much explain the purpose for making the amendment; so it will come to the same thing.

That being said, we will review these changes to the Domestic Substances List, which are made a number of times each year. Should that prove not to be the case, they will come before the committee.

Mr. Bélanger: The case being closed could be reopened.

Mr. Kent: Not this case.

Mr. Bernhardt: The issue could be reopened should we come up against the same issue with a future amendment to this list. It would come back to the committee in the new context.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): We'll close this file for now and keep our fingers crossed for the next one. Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

SOR/98-443 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW PANEL SERVICE CHARGES ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 13K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We are now moving on to ''Reply Satisfactory (?)'' and Item 12. On this file, the committee suggested to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that two orders be repealed. The agency previously advised that it did not intend to repeal the orders until the outstanding amounts were repaid in full.

Taseko Mines Limited has started legal proceedings and disagrees that it owes the outstanding amounts. The CEAA believes it is prudent to postpone any repeal of the orders until that legal dispute has been resolved.

Mr. Abel: That's correct, Madam Chair. I would only add that there doesn't seem to be any particular legal reason why the orders couldn't be repealed immediately. It wouldn't affect the previous validity of the orders. However, the agency certainly is reluctant to do so until their legal matters are resolved.

The only other incidental matter is that the committee had asked the agency to confirm that both orders were up for repeal, and they have confirmed that they intend to repeal both of them in the end.

Mr. Albas: Counsel has done a good job. However, the agency is just showing deference to the ongoing process and has given a rationale. I think we can just monitor the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Mr. Bélanger: I would agree because I suspect they may have had legal opinion, which we can't obtain, saying that removing it at this time might weaken their position. It's a good thing to do.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/95-212 — PLANT PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix L, p. 13L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 13 under ''Progress.'' This matter began with 25 issues in 2000. All but one were satisfactorily resolved and received promises of action. Bill C-18, the proposed agricultural growth act, contains all statutory amendments to the Plant Protection Act needed to resolve the committee's concerns. An amendment to the corresponding regulations will also need to be made.

The last update we had was that this bill was at committee stage. Counsel, is that correct?

Mr. Abel: That's correct, Madam Chair. The bill was before the Agriculture Committee three times in October, and that's where it stands.

As you mentioned, 14 provisions will have to be amended, revoked or remade following amendments to the act. The agency has confirmed that they plan to do this, assuming there are no major changes to the bill before it's passed.

Senator Meredith: We'll just continue to monitor it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/86-1004 — ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY NON-COMPULSORY AREA REGULATIONS

SOR/2007-60 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY NON-COMPULSORY AREA REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 13M1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): The first item under Progress (?)'' is No. 14. On this file, 13 amendments are to be made to the regulations. In May, the committee asked the Department of Transport when we could expect the amendments to be made. The department advised that the Atlantic Pilotage Authority anticipated that they would be published in mid-2016.

Mr. Albas: We can just monitor the file. Some areas obviously need to be dealt with, but the department has responded that they will make the amendments. Given the low nature of it, being mainly drafting, we can live with that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/97-109 — PCB WASTE EXPORT REGULATIONS, 1996

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 13N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 15. Amendments to address five concerns have been promised on a long-standing basis, not surprisingly. The committee last wrote to the Department of the Environment in May. We are advised now that the proposed amendments will be pre-published in the Canada Gazette by the end of 2014.

Mr. Abel: Madam Chair, I would remind members that plans to complete these amendments have repeatedly failed to reach fruition or been pushed back year after year. On more than one occasion, the committee recommended that these amendments proceed independently in order to avoid foreseeable delays. The department has always attempted to combine them with other packages, which have not materialized. I would suggest perhaps that the history of this file and the distant date of their projection might give members pause.

Mr. Clarke: We should just monitor the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-197 — STORAGE TANK SYSTEMS FOR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND ALLIED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix O, p. 13O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 16. Many matters were raised several years ago in connection with these regulations. All but one were resolved in 2012. The remaining matter pertains to potential language discrepancies between the French and English versions. The Environment Department last anticipated publication in the Canada Gazette during 2014. Now it anticipates early 2015 as a timeline.

Mr. Abel: That's correct, Madam Chair. I'm in members' hands as to how they would like to handle the file.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I don't understand why this can't be resolved quickly. We have translators around here that could probably do it almost verbally. I guess we'll just have to monitor this, but I'd like to see them move a little more quickly. If it's simply a translation issue, it should be resolved and not even have come to this committee. I guess we'll just monitor it, unless the committee thinks otherwise.

Senator Moore: How can we expedite this file? It's the same as the previous one. It's been going on for years. Does ''monitor'' mean that we're accepting the process the departments are following? I don't accept that. Shouldn't we try to push these things to the proper conclusion rather than sit back and say, ''We'll wait and see what they do?'' I don't like that.

Mr. Albas: Given the amount of legislation and new regulations that come out on a regular basis, the system already is performing in areas that are considered higher level. When they say they're going to pre-publish in the Canada Gazette, it's because the item is usually part of a regulatory package that is going ahead. While I can understand that members may want to see action now, we also have to accept that these are drafting concerns. I would much rather have issues of implementing new environmental laws or other regulations that are modernized, which obviously take precedence to protect Canadians' health and safety. They should happen first.

I realize that sometimes it may be frustrating for certain members that it doesn't happen right away, but even small regulatory changes can take up to two years through our regular processes. In order to be efficient, we have to work with departments. Obviously, if something is way out of whack, that's when we start writing letters to ministers, et cetera, to try to see action. What I'm trying to say to members is that, sometimes, we should pick and choose our issues very carefully to make sure that we are the most effective we can be.

Senator Moore: I guess I agree with what you're saying, but what's the time when it's no longer acceptable? How many years can go by? One of them is seven years. What's the cut-off, when we say, ''Okay, enough. Fix it''? They've been ragging the puck for how many years? Fix it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): I note that it does say early 2015, so maybe the monitoring could be done with that in mind — a tighter leash on the monitoring for this point.

Senator Moore: It is the same as the one before. They are hollow promises. They aren't even promises with dates indicated. This one is better. Anyway, I find it very frustrating that some of these things are not being cleaned up. It has been years. I don't think the public would think that we're doing our job.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Monitor with a tight leash? Is that acceptable, senator?

Senator Moore: Yes, that's good.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: What concerns me in this whole system is that we are sometimes looking at matters that have been dragging on for 20 years. We hear our colleagues talking about parties; we are not here for partisan reasons but for things to move forward; we are looking for effectiveness. We must not say that, because a minister is a Conservative, we have to stand behind that minister. No, what we stand behind is making the system work: the parliamentary system and the regulations. We have to take that critical view, a non-partisan view. We are looking at things that have been dragging on for 20 years, and a number of governments have come and gone. After all, we want Canadians to have clear legislation so that Canada can move forward with some degree of clarity. I feel that we have to get rid of the partisanship and talk about effectiveness. We want this to work as it is meant to work, with respect for the legislation and regulations that are consistent with that legislation.

Mr. Bélanger: I would like to make a suggestion. Perhaps I am asking a question; I am not really sure. I have been on this committee for a reasonable amount of time, though not as long as some of my colleagues. I am beginning to understand the process a little, and the fact that the process can be nuanced. However, I have to tell you that I am sharing what I am hearing, that the level of frustration is rising. Perhaps I am mistaken; I am not accusing anyone and I do not want anyone at all to take exception. But I am under the impression more and more that we are not fully using the tools at our disposal to move certain files forward. That is a concern for me.

Would it be possible at some stage for our counsel to provide us with a reasonably detailed picture of the various tools and the ways in which we could proceed to speed up the process of closing files?

That is what I tried to do this morning. Instead of writing to the same person, we move it up a notch. Instead of writing to the department, we write to the minister. On occasion, instead of bothering the minister, we could perhaps call people before the committee. There seems to be some reluctance to doing so, and I do not understand why.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: We can certainly do that. I believe that something similar was done several years ago to provide members with a list of the tools in the kit as opposed to when and how these things should be used. But we can certainly set out various ways the committee can choose to proceed, if that's the wish of members.

Mr. Albas: While I do like the existential path that we've gone down here, just getting back to the file, I think monitoring is fine. If counsel wants to send out a report that's already been done and distribute it to members, and if members want to invest the time and meet with Mr. Bernhardt and his team independently to go over it, I think that's a good use of time.

Getting back to Ms. Ayala's comments, we've already had the debates in Parliament. This is more about using common sense about how to get things done. Whether it means a meeting in person, a phone call or a letter and to whom and to what are really up to us to decide. I see no harm, especially if the work has already been done.

Again, we have to always remind ourselves that our staff has hundreds, if not thousands, of documents that they have to continually look at. I would much rather have them doing their job than typing up a new report, but if one has been done, I think it's a good idea to send it out.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Does counsel have one to send to us?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, we'll certainly revisit it and send it out. If there's anything to update, we're here to do whatever members want us to do. If members would like that circulated widely, I'll send it to members as a memo.

Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Albas requested that this has to have already been done, which I find problematic, but we'll leave it at that for now.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): In case Ms. Ayala didn't hear that, counsel said that he does have a report. There may need to be a slight bit of updating, but he has something that he can distribute to members.

On this one, No. 16, we will monitor it with a tight leash.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-169 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PARI-MUTUEL BETTING SUPERVISION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 13P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 17, eight amendments are promised. Some are to correct drafting problems, and two are to harmonize English and French versions. One clarifies a provision, and one removes a provision that the committee viewed to be illegal.

The Agriculture Department had previously promised to hold public consultations on the proposed amendments in 2013. Now the department says it's in the process of its final preparations before public consultations, which are expected later in the summer. That was the last note we had about that. There is no indication about when amendments are to be made, though.

Counsel, do you have anything further?

Mr. Abel: All I can add, Madam Chair, is that from publications in the Canada Gazette it appears that the consultations had at least begun during the summer. They may have concluded, but I can't tell for sure. That's where the file stands.

Mr. Anders: I think we should write back asking when they plan to finish up their consultations. I know there's some discrepancy in terms of whether it's summer, spring, et cetera. We should ask for an overall timeline for the promised amendments.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-77 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EGG REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 13Q:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 18 under ''Action Promised.'' At our request, counsel wrote to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in April regarding the phrase ''safe and effective'' found in two sections of the regulations. Counsel suggested that the agency's letter provided a clear and objective meaning for those terms and perhaps that could be incorporated into the regulations. The agency responded that it is in the process of fully modernizing the regulations and that they're expecting Gazette publication in 2015.

Counsel?

Mr. Abel: That's where it stands, Madam Chair. If members are satisfied with that, counsel can continue to monitor the file and follow up in the usual fashion.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I've been at this committee for quite some time, and it seems we spend a lot of time at our meetings with the egg producers and the chicken producers. I'm wondering if counsel maybe can do a little research and tell us which came first, the problems with the egg producers or the problems with the chicken producers.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Mr. Breitkreuz, you might remember that Mr. Albas raised a similar question at our last meeting.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Did he?

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We will monitor the file, as counsel suggested.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 13R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Moving on to Item 19, following our meeting in May, counsel wrote to the Environment Department and asked for an update about a few outstanding matters on these regulations. The department advised that on the first issue it has now decided to propose an amendment to the French version of the regulations, and on the remaining matter the department now agrees to propose necessary amendments to address our concerns the next time the regulations are amended, which is now sooner than expected, they say — 2016.

Counsel?

Mr. Abel: I have nothing else to add, Madam Chair. However members want to proceed.

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

Mr. Bélanger: When in 2016? Seriously. It's just a little point.

Mr. Albas: This is a department that has actually agreed with us and is making the changes. These things are going to happen. Clearly they have an undertaking to do it. Let's just work in good faith.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We will monitor the file and Mr. Bélanger will make an inquiry.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-100 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DETERMINATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARKING GOODS (NON-NAFTA COUNTRIES) REGULATIONS AND THE DETERMINATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF MARKING GOODS (NAFTA COUNTRIES) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 13S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 20, upon reviewing these regulations prior to our consideration, counsel noticed a discrepancy between the subheadings noted in the English and French versions. The Department of Finance agrees with counsel's finding and will recommend that such regulations be amended at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Abel: If members agree, counsel could seek a time frame for when that amendment might come forward.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-80 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL SIGNAL AND DISTANT SIGNAL REGULATIONS AND THE DEFINITION OF ''SMALL CABLE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM'' REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix T, p. 13T:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 20 under ''Action Taken.'' On this item, an inconsistency in terminology used the French version has now been amended.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. The file can be closed.

SOR/2014-83 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix U, p. 13:U1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Moving on to Item 22, this instrument remakes an amendment that was previously purported to be made by a prior regulation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernhardt: Exactly. The file can be closed.

[English]

SI/2014-50 — SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL BAR ORDER "EXPEDITION"

SI/2014-59 — ORDER FIXING JULY 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTIONS 1 TO 12 OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-60 — ORDER FIXING JULY 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH SECTIONS 13 AND 14 OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-61 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF NON-CIRCULATION COINS OF THE DENOMINATIONS OF ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS

SI/2014-63— ORDER DESIGNATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA TO BE THE MINISTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT

SI/2014-65 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SOR/2009-186 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS (PART III AND SCHEDULE III)

SOR/2009-222 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (SECURITIES HELD BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS)

SOR/2011-9 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (PHASE-OUT OF THE ACCELERATED CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE FOR OIL SANDS PROJECTS)

SOR/2011-188 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCOME TAX REGULATIONS (OMNIBUS, NO. 3)

SOR/2012-284 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FREEZING ASSETS OF CORRUPT FOREIGN OFFICIALS (TUNISIA AND EGYPT) REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-28 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT

SOR/2014-33 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FREEZING ASSETS OF CORRUPT FOREIGN OFFICIALS (TUNISIA AND EGYPT) REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-106 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-107 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING LEVIES ORDER

SOR/2014-116 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-157 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 1 TO THE FIRST NATIONS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, NO. 2014-2 (NESKONLITH)

SOR/2014-164 — ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF A TWO DOLLAR CIRCULATION COIN SPECIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS AND DETERMINING THE DESIGN

SOR/2014-165 — ORDER AMENDING PART 1 OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE ACT

SOR/2014-167 — ORDER 2014-87-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2014-168 — ORDER 2014-66-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2014-170 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-174 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We also have 23 ''Statutory Instruments Without Comment.'' Those are always great ones to see. I congratulate counsel and this committee for their good work in getting those processed. I did notice that there were some chickens in this.

Mr. Bernhardt: But no problem chickens.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): If there's nothing further, our next meeting is set for the week after our break week, November 20.

(The committee adjourned.)

---