---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 15 - Evidence - December 4, 2014

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, December 4, 2014

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

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

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Good morning, everybody. Let me call the last committee meeting of 2014 to order.

Since I will not be chairing the end of this meeting, let me take this opportunity to wish all members of the committee and all the amazing staff that have helped us throughout the year a very Merry Christmas and happy holidays.

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

SOR/97-9 — SEEDS REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/2001-274 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 15A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Let's start with Item 1 on our agenda, under the heading "Letters To and From Ministers."

Despite Bill C-18, there still appears to be no legislative authority to proceed with regulations that govern the release of feeds and seeds into the environment. Counsel?

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: That's correct. However, at the committee's May 29 meeting, which was the last time this issue was before the committee, it was noted that amendments to the regulations, following the enactment of Bill C-18, could be contemplated that might resolve the objection of the committee to the lack of authority for provisions in the regulations that govern release into the environment. For example, if the risk of harm to the environment is now to be considered in the evaluation of a feed or a seed for which approval or registration is sought, the provisions in the regulations might no longer be necessary. As well, it was noted that there is a prohibition in the bill on the manufacture, sale, import or export, in contravention of the regulations, of a feed or seed that presents a risk of harm to the environment. Given that possibility, it was the wish of the committee that the minister be asked what additional amendments to the regulations might be expected after the bill passed.

The minister's October 9 reply makes mention of several of the amendments to the Feeds Act and the Seeds Act that are in Bill C-18, and the minister states that the authorities proposed through the bill will provide necessary tools to amend the regulations in some very important ways. He also mentions that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is conducting a review of the Feeds Regulations and that the agency's also planning to undertake review of the Seeds Regulations.

It would, therefore, appear that amendments to the regulations are indeed to be made following the passage of Bill C-18, although the exact nature and scope of these amendments isn't indicated in the minister's letter. So it's impossible from that to know with certainty whether the committee's concern will be addressed.

Senator Meredith: The recommendation, then, is that we write to the minister to see how expeditious, in terms of time frame, the turnaround of these regulations will be. He indicated that CFIA, as well, has to provide their input. We want to know the time frame in which that will take place. That's my recommendation.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Is there agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-532 — TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 15B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under the same heading, Item 2 on the agenda deals with changes have been made in Bill C-43, but, once again, changes to regulations are still needed as well.

Cynthia Kirkby, Counsel to the Committee: The issue is that the Telecommunications Act authorizes the Governor- in-Council to make regulations prescribing telecommunications apparatus for which a technical acceptance certificate is required. The regulations instead provide that telecommunications apparatus for which the minister has established technical specifications require a technical acceptance certificate.

As the committee noted, this provision is ultra vires since it does not prescribe apparatus, but rather it effectively subdelegates the legislative power conferred on the Governor-in-Council to the minister to be exercised on an administrative basis.

As noted, Bill C-43, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, was mentioned in the minister's letter of October 31, advising that the committee's concerns would be addressed that way. The approach taken in that bill is to remove the requirement for a technical acceptance certificate for a prescribed apparatus. The minister would gain the authority to register telecommunications apparatus and the Governor-in-Council would lose the authority to prescribe it.

By way of information, Bill C-43 is currently at report stage in the House of Commons and is being pre-studied in the Senate. As mentioned, there would still be amendments required to the regulations after Bill C-43 becomes law, at least to remove the now obsolete references to technical acceptance certificates.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you very much for that analysis. In light of what you've said, I think we'll just have to monitor the file until all legislation has passed through the house.

Mr. Bélanger: That will be Monday or Tuesday.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2013-65 — ORDER FIXING THE DAY ON WHICH THIS ORDER IS PUBLISHED AND SIX MONTHS AFTER THAT DAY AS THE DAYS ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 15C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 3 under "New Instruments." Members will have received an additional package to the original mailing, which included the corrected report of the third report.

At issue here is whether a day really is "fixed" if provisions come into effect on the day an order is published or on the day that is six months thereafter, which isn't necessarily very fixed. Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's quite correct. At the time the order was made, it was impossible to know the day on which the provisions would come into force because the order hadn't been published yet, and the order stated they came into force on the date of publication or six months after. So if this means that the days to which the order makes reference had yet to be fixed, this in turn would lead to the conclusion that the order itself fails to fix a day of coming into force, as is required.

The September 17 reply from the Department of Health maintains that the order can be said to have fixed the coming-into-force date. This issue was recently dealt with by the joint committee in its third report, in connection with another order, SI-2009-102. The same reasoning the committee adopted in that report would apply to this particular order as well, 2013-65.

I should add that this is one of five recent instances of this approach being taken. We have written initial letters on all five. We have this reply and a basically identical reply on one of the others, and we're still waiting for a reply on three of them.

We would suggest that here the department again confuses knowing that the provisions will come into force when the order is published or some specified time after that with knowing when publication will take place.

By way of a rhetorical question, could it be said, at the time the order was made, that the publication date had been fixed? Obviously not. Then how can referring to that date be said to fix a date?

The department takes the view that there are a number of ways to fix a date, and Parliament did not restrict the power to fix it in any particular way. It bears pointing out that the committee never said otherwise. The question is not whether Parliament restricted the power to fix a day but whether there has been a day fixed at all in the first place. The department does point to a similar order made in 2004 that was submitted to the committee without comment.

The committee's recent report, I would suggest, indicates that a different view would be taken today. This aside, the committee has objected routinely to instances of delegated powers to fix something being exercised in a manner that did not establish that thing with sufficient certainty.

I'm not sure that one instance a decade ago that may have escaped the committee's attention is particularly telling. It may be more telling that the department had to go back this far in time to find one instance of the committee not objecting.

The department suggests that if Parliament wished to restrict the power to fix a day for coming into force, it could adopt wording to that effect and depart from the traditional wording used to confer the power to fix a day. This argument was specifically addressed in the committee's report. The committee took the view that Parliament could hardly be any clearer that it is. When Parliament delegates the authority to fix a date, what Parliaments wants is that a date be fixed. The meaning of that requirement seems abundantly clear. If Parliament wishes to coordinate coming into force with a specific event or a future event, Parliament provides expressly for that as well.

Again, we suggest the department has the situation somewhat backwards. There's never been a need, in its words, to "depart from the traditional wording" because at least until recently what that wording conveyed was apparently clear to everybody. The departure, in fact, is the argument now being advanced by the department.

Senator Runciman: Since this is an ongoing concern, rather than trying to deal with the various departments, perhaps we should go beyond that to the Privy Council Office on something like this to indicate that this ongoing concern seems to be ignored continually by various departments of government. We could attach a copy of Report No. 88. Maybe we should also cc the Minister of Justice and ask PCO for a response to our concerns.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2014-64 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 15D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 4, as many of you may know, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation ceased to exist in 2009, but it has not satisfactorily been removed from the schedule to the Access to Information Act Heads of Government Institutions Designation Order.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. The intent of this instrument was to delete those references. Somehow it seemed that the corporation came to be listed twice in the English version of the schedule but only once in the French version. No one has been able to identify an amendment that added that second reference to the English version. However, it has led to complications when trying to remove this straightforward reference from the schedule.

The French version of section 2 of the amending order repeals the second reference in the English version, and that's item 40.1. The English version simply states that item 40.1 of the schedule is removed. Because it doesn't specifically say it's removed from the English version, the effect, then, is to take it out of the English and the French versions. This causes difficulties, of course, because item 40.1 in the French version is in fact the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The Privy Council Office has advised that this second listing of item 40.1 in the English version was the result of an administrative error and could have been corrected without a legislative amendment. This somewhat begs the question: Why was the amendment made in the first place? Apparently, the Department of Justice purported to delete an item that it knew was never actually in the schedule in the first place and then mishandled the drafting of the unnecessary amendment.

PCO states that it's the opinion of the Department of Justice that the courts would not interpret these amendments as affecting the validity of item 40.1 of the French version — the reference to the Immigration and Refugee Board — taking into account the legislative intent, and that may well be the case. A court confronted with a problem that arose from this would be likely to look at the intent and conclude that it wasn't going to give effect to this erroneous amendment. Perhaps a more pertinent question would be whether the discrepancy will give rise to any confusion or doubt.

The French version is clear on its face. If you simply read the French version, you'll have no problem understanding what was intended. If you read the two versions together, you come to the same conclusion. You will identify that there was somewhat of an error made, but it's easy to see what the intent was, which was to delete Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.

If you read only the English version, you'll have no way of discovering that a mistake was made because you would have to compare the two versions. As well, the consolidated version kept by the Department of Justice on its website reflects what was intended as it has the corrected version.

Given all that, it would be open to the committee to view this as a technical error that was unlikely to have any real consequence. If that's the view of the committee, I don't think a corrective amendment would be necessary, and the committee could probably close the file.

Mr. Anders: We probably should be satisfied by the September 11 letter from Privy Council Office and close the file.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-258 — ORDER 2013-87-11-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-259 — ORDER 2013-87-11-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 15E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 5 on our agenda. Apparently two orders were given the exact same number in their titles. Additionally, another one wasn't registered within the seven days of its making.

Ms. Kirkby: That's correct. The department gave these two orders amending the Domestic Substances List the same identifying number in their titles. The department indicates that this was an oversight and that it has taken corrective measures to ensure duplicate numbers are not assigned again.

In addition, it appears that the department again failed to comply with the seven-day period to transmit regulations for registration set out in the Statutory Instruments Act. The department explained that the delay in registration was due in part to the orders' identical numbers. It seems that the Privy Council Office returned the files to the department with a request for clarification. The department reviewed the situation and returned them to the clerk for registration.

This is perhaps not a terribly robust explanation since the phrase "in part" suggests that other unidentified factors also contributed to the delay in registration. Further, it could be asked why the duplicate numbering was not addressed once the Privy Council Office brought it to the department's attention.

Regardless, the orders did receive distinct registration numbers. Given their nature, it seems unlikely that the duplicate numbering in the title assigned by the department will cause confusion.

Senator McInnis: In the end, no harm was done. They did say that they put certain procedures in place so this would not happen again. In any event, the file probably should be closed now.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-95 — EXPERIMENTAL LAKES AREA RESEARCH ACTIVITIES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 15F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 6 under "Reply Unsatisfactory," a number of sections of the regulations appear to be unauthorized, others are duplicative, and another section is not consistent between the English and the French versions. Counsel?

Ms. Kirkby: The regime that enables these regulations is somewhat complicated, so I will try to keep it fairly simple. There is more background in the notes provided to the committee.

As a result of recent amendments to the Fisheries Act, the Minister of the Environment has been authorized to make certain regulations allowing the deposit of deleterious substances in circumstances where the deposit would otherwise be prohibited, subject to Governor-in-Council regulations establishing conditions for the exercise of the minister's regulation-making authority.

The first issue is fairly straightforward. The regulations unnecessarily indicate that "deleterious substance" has the same meaning as in the enabling act. This provision is entirely without legal purpose since section 16 of the Interpretation Act already provides that expressions used in regulations have the same meanings as in their enabling acts.

The department offers various arguments for why it considers this provision to be useful, but as discussed more thoroughly in the note, none seems particularly well-founded. For example, the department seems to feel that readers might find it confusing to not have a definition in the regulations themselves, but the committee has consistently held that this is insufficient justification to repeat definitions from the parent act.

Similarly, on the second point, which is about section 3 of the regulations, it was put to the department that it is unnecessary to state that deleterious substances may be deposited if "the purpose of the deposit is solely for scientific research" since the minister has no authority to exempt deposits for any other purpose. The Minister of the Environment is only authorized to regulate in relation to research activities, meaning activities during which a deposit of a deleterious substance is made for the sole purpose of acquiring scientific knowledge as a result of the regulations establishing conditions for making regulations under subsection 36(5.2) of the Fisheries Act.

As a result of the scope of the enabling regulations, the minister has no authority to allow deposits for any other purpose, and so it adds nothing to say in these regulations that a deleterious substance can be deposited only if the purpose is solely for scientific research.

Points 3, 4 and 5 relate to what the department describes as conditions for deposit but are in fact ongoing requirements to provide information after the deposit has already been made. The department disagrees without really providing much by way of explanation, as discussed in more detail in the note.

First, there is the matter of logic that it must be known at the time of the deposit whether the conditions for the deposit have been met. Any facts that can only be determined some period of time after the deposit has been made cannot logically be described as conditions for the deposit. Further, principles of statutory interpretation help demonstrate that the meeting of conditions for deposit is intended to refer to such things as physical properties of the deposit that can be known in advance.

In addition, other provisions of the Fisheries Act that grant regulation-making authority refer separately to conditions and to the provision of information, so it must be presumed that Parliament deliberately chose to refer only to conditions here.

Finally, section 36(6) of the Fisheries Act specifically contemplates the provision of information by persons authorized to deposit deleterious substances, but this is when directed to do so by the minister, not as a matter of course under ministerial regulations.

In conclusion on this point, this all suggests that the intent was to not include requirements relating to the provision of information after the deposit has already been made as a condition for deposit.

There are additional complications relating to section 7, under point 5, and the failure to distinguish between conditions of the deposit of a deleterious substance under ministerial regulations and conditions for the exercise of the minister's regulation-making power in the first place. The note provided to the committee reviews this issue in detail, as well as raising the theoretical issue of what happens to the regulations if the conditions that were precedent to the exercise of the minister's regulation-making authority have ceased to exist. But it is perhaps sufficient to note that the department recognizes that section 7 is indeed a requirement relating to the provision of information, which again suggests that it is ultra vires solely on that basis.

To conclude on a positive note, the department agrees to address a French-English discrepancy in relation to section 5(1), although no timeline has been provided.

Mr. Clarke: Thanks for the positive reflection.

Hopefully we can write back to the department reiterating our position and then press the department to fully address the lack of express authority on points 3, 4 and 5, and respect the principle and clarity in the drafting and addressing the unnecessarily repetitive nature of point 1, as well as a provision that it's unnecessary to repeat it in point 2.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Who do we write to in the department?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): To whom are you proposing we write this?

Mr. Clarke: To the department. Since we are seeing some of the corrections being made, I think we should give the department time to clarify the corrections that are necessary, and get a time back to see what they've done and maybe press the issue again.

Mr. Bélanger: Who in the department?

Mr. Clarke: It doesn't matter.

Mr. Bélanger: There would be a person responsible?

Mr. Bernhardt: The usual contact person? In this case it would be Mr. Moffet.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Which department are we talking about, Fisheries or Environment?

Senator Moore: You mentioned Environment.

Mr. Bernhardt: In this case, the power to make the regulations has been delegated to the Minister of the Environment, so that department is responsible.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Why don't we send a copy to the other one that is also concerned? You start by talking about the enabling provision in the Fisheries Act to authorize the minister, et cetera. I know we are dealing with the one department, but you have two ministries involved in this.

Mr. Clarke: Seeing how much of a mess this file is, let's work on the one department before they start making changes both ways.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: No, no. I think the people in Fisheries would help their colleagues to understand that they are going nowhere with what they're doing.

Mr. Clarke: We can cc them on the letter.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, cc them.

Mr. Clarke: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are we agreed? We are sending a letter to Environment, copying Fisheries and Oceans.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/96-254 — PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEMEN FOR ASSISTED CONCEPTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2000-299 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEMEN FOR ASSISTED CONCEPTION REGULATIONS (1218 — ALTERNATIVE TESTS)

SOR/2000-410 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEMEN FOR ASSISTED CONCEPTION REGULATIONS (1238 — SPECIAL ACCESS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 15G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): With regard to Item 7 under "Reply Unsatisfactory (?)," members will recall this item was last before us about a year ago. Although there now seems to be agreement to deal with the concerns we raised, the time frame we're being given is still two years out.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. I should add that that's two years out to commence the review of the regulations. The department says that given their priorities, a realistic time frame for the commencement of the review and modernization would be 2016-17. There's no indication how long they would expect that review to take, and then after that there would be the whole process of making amendments.

The department commits to eventually addressing the committee's concerns. It offers to provide an annual update.

I should point out that last year the department, committed to providing quarterly updates. After 10 months, no update had been received, so the committee was forced to chase it up of its own initiative.

As far as the substance is concerned, members may recall that these regulations are based on the view that human semen processed for assisted conception is a drug under the Food and Drugs Act. The argument has been advanced that it's a drug because it alters the biological function of women.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Really?

Mr. Bernhardt: Somewhat like air and water, I could suggest.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Perhaps a bit different.

Senator Runciman: Not quite like that.

Mr. Bernhardt: There is the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. The committee has always taken a view that that is the act under which these regulations should be made. Of course, that act has had a long and somewhat tortuous history. Large chunks of it were struck down by the Supreme Court. Amendments then had to be made, and that has caused some of the delays the committee has encountered.

There are provisions in that act that would support these regulations. They have yet to come into force, which is how the committee ended up where it is this morning.

Senator Runciman: I'm looking to counsel for recommendations. What bothers me the most about this is they're treating the committee as a nuisance or a pain in the butt. Essentially that's the way it strikes me. And then to repeat an assurance that they failed to meet initially, can we as a committee make a specific request that they bring those relevant sections into force? Is that appropriate for us to do?

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee can always ask if it's the wish. One possibility might be to ask whether there would be consideration to doing that and transferring these regulations over.

I'm guessing that we're a number of years away from other amendments to the regulations, so it may be worth asking whether that could be done in the interim. That would probably be a request that should be made to the minister, I would think, but that's always possible.

Senator Runciman: Anything else you think we should do?

Mr. Bernhardt: There are the usual options. The committee could continue to exercise patience. I suppose it could simply report the issue to Parliament, drawing the attention of the houses to the fact that this situation has been ongoing. As members are well aware, this whole area is a somewhat complex, not to say controversial, area of the law. I'm assuming that there are a number of other considerations that the department is juggling as well in terms of how they eventually wish to go forward with this whole regime. There was the commission of inquiry. We had the Supreme Court challenge.

I'm not without some sympathy for the department and the government in trying to change the regime. As you say, on the other hand, we're moving into the second decade.

Senator Runciman: Can we say that it's the committee's view that they should bring the relevant sections into force? Based on their response, then we can make a determination on whether we want to do a report on it or not.

Mr. Bernhardt: It never hurts to ask.

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

Senator Meredith: I want to set some timelines for the response because, just reading the analysis here, it's been protracted. I think we should set some firm dates with them, within the first quarter, that they respond to us, if that's the wish of the committee.

Mr. Bernhardt: Given that it's going to the minister, one way to suggest something like that would be simply to indicate when the committee would like to see the file again and express the hope that we'd have the minister's response by that time. It's perhaps a little more diplomatic.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): I see agreement on that. When would we like to see the file again? By the end of March? Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-135 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I TO THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

SOR/2008-136 — ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE PRIVACY ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 15H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item No. 8. These two instruments deal with the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada. It was to be deleted from schedule 1 to the Access to Information Act as well as the schedule to the Privacy Act. At first we were told it would be part of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, but it wasn't. Now we're being told that other, perhaps more suitable, legislative options are being explored. Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: I really don't have much to add, other than to point out that this arose because of a rather unusual situation that, under the relevant statutes, the Governor-in-Council has authority to amend the schedules to the acts by adding things to them. He doesn't have the authority to amend the schedule to the acts by deleting things from them. I'm not sure why that should be, but that's what the acts provide.

Mr. Vellacott: It might be a good idea to write back to the Privy Council early in the new year and ask if, between them and the Justice Minister, they have a proposal to address this.

I'm a little bit curious as to why it's called the Henry VIII clause. Perhaps you can enlighten me. But I think if they could share the details and offer a suggestion as to when they figure to implement that, that would be helpful to us.

Mr. Bernhardt: In the world of legislative drafters, a provision that allows someone to amend an act by regulation is referred to as a Henry VIII clause because of that particular king's fondness for issuing decrees that overrode statutes passed by his Parliament. So we have here a situation that says the Governor-in-Council can amend a schedule to the act by way of a regulation. That's become known as a Henry VIII clause.

Mr. Bélanger: As to the act that was presented in May, the Proposals for a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, what is its status now?

Mr. Bernhardt: The House of Commons has reported and I believe the Senate committee reported. Both houses have reported.

Mr. Bélanger: Is it too late to introduce an amendment in either house?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think so.

Senator Runciman: It's not really relevant, but as King Henry VIII said to each of his six wives, "I won't keep you long."

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Thank you very much for that.

There's a proposal on the floor that we write to the PCO in the new year.

Mr. Vellacott: Yes, and ask if the justice minister has a suggested proposal for how to resolve this and deal with it. If they have said proposal, we would like to know the timelines for implementing that.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-120 — VESSEL OPERATION RESTRICTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-34 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE VESSEL OPERATION RESTRICTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2010-226 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE VESSEL OPERATION RESTRICTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 15I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 9 on our agenda is under the heading "Part Action Promised." These are all instruments dealing with the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations. Action has been promised by mid-2015, although at least one and perhaps two items remain unresolved.

Ms. Kirkby: That's correct. The department still intends to publish at least some of the promised amendments by mid-2015, although it's unclear which amendments will be part of that package and which outstanding items will be published the following year.

As mentioned, there does appear to be progress on one of the two issues that was discussed in-depth on the two occasions this file has been before the committee. That is specifically with respect to point 8, which is paragraph 14(2) (b) of the regulations. The department was asked how the minister determines a vessel is seaworthy before issuing a permit to anchor a vessel within the waters of False Creek. The department has responded that:

The intent of this paragraph is to reiterate to the boating community that the seaworthiness of a vessel remains ultimately and firmly the responsibility of the owner/authorized representative of the vessel or the operator of a pleasure craft.

This explanation does not appear to reflect the text of the provision, which indicates that the minister shall issue a permit if various conditions are met, including that the vessel is seaworthy. In other words, the regulations require the minister to somehow determine that the vessel is seaworthy prior to issuing a permit. Although the department does not seem to agree, it has stated that it will work toward better articulating that the obligation to ensure seaworthiness falls on the owner.

The other live issue relates to point 2, which is section 4 of the regulations, concerning whether public consultations must be held in all instances. The provision requires the local authority to submit information, including information regarding the public consultations held, but it does not require the local authority to hold public consultations.

The department now argues that it is implied that public consultations must be held and that this is apparent by reference to the significant guiding objectives of the act and to the established local authority guide. It could be argued that if the department intends there to be an obligation to hold public consultations, it's difficult to understand its hesitance to make this clear in the regulation. It should not be left to readers to infer this obligation from non-binding administrative documents and from statutory objectives, such as promoting the safe and efficient navigation of vessels and protecting the public interest.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I find this somewhat confusing. I don't know if the rest of the committee sees it that way. I think we need some clarity here. I would like to know what amendments they're going to proceed with by mid-2015 and what they are going to do the following year. I think we need guidelines here, and I think we need a specific response to point 2. I think they also need to better articulate or clarify point 3.

[Translation]

Ms. Quach: As far as demonstrating a vessel's seaworthiness is concerned, it seems to me that responsibility should fall on the department, not the owner of the vessel. As for the obligation to hold public consultations, I do not think it should be implied; people should not have to guess that the obligation is there. People need to be fully aware of the fact that consultations are mandatory and public.

So I would suggest writing another letter to supplement the information we already asked for.

[English]

Mr. Albas: What we heard from the previous speakers is not inconsistent with one another. In the regulations, the necessity of consultations is not a requirement by law. Is that correct, because that's one of the issues here?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. Our question was simply: Is it the case that in practice you always require people to hold consultations?

Mr. Albas: Ms. Quach mentioned that she had questions about the seaworthiness. The department has outlined that a process is in place for inspections to ensure that; is that correct?

Mr. Bernhardt: There can be a process. The difficulty with that provision is that they seem to wish it to impose an ongoing obligation on the owner of the boat. In other words, they're trying to say that you can lose your permit if your boat is no longer seaworthy. However, they've drafted a requirement that says the minister can give you a permit if it's seaworthy, which kind of puts the onus on the minister to make a determination as to whether something's seaworthy before issuing a permit. It seems that's not really what they're trying to convey here. The problem is getting the regulations to match what they want them to say.

Mr. Albas: Getting a clear answer on point 2 as well as detailed commitments as to what Mr. Breitkreuz suggests.

Mr. Bernhardt: It's difficult to see the reluctance on point 2. Their argument is that of course you have to have public consultations. The question then is: Okay, would you put that explicitly in the regulations? The answer is no. Well, why not? You're saying you do it in all cases anyway. You're making other amendments to the regulations. It's difficult to see why there is pushback on simply stating expressly what they say is the case anyway.

Mr. Albas: I'm quite happy with the process laid out by other members.

Mr. Vellacott: Is it an issue of liability? Is the Crown liable if they're the ones to deem it seaworthy? It's kind of a reverse onus as it is on them as opposed to on the boat owner.

Mr. Bernhardt: I suppose if you had a situation where there was damage caused by an unseaworthy boat to other property or to people and there was an allegation that somehow the minister was negligent by issuing a permit to something that wasn't seaworthy in the first place, it would be an issue that could come up.

Certainly, what they're suggesting they want and what the committee is looking for is the removal of that possibility to some extent let the minister off the hook, because it would shift the onus to the person who owns the boat.

Mr. Vellacott: I just wondered how that works in law. Perhaps that's in part what the dance is about as well.

Mr. Bernhardt: It can be. It's a difficult case to prove. In theory, the negligent exercise of the statutory power can leave you open to damages. The courts are very reluctant to intrude on how a decision is made.

Mr. Vellacott: There's not necessarily a lot of precedence that says the certifying body is negligent or liable.

Mr. Bernhardt: No. In theory, it is; but, in practice, the courts are very reluctant to make that finding.

Senator Moore: The letter states that "seaworthiness of a vessel remains ultimately and firmly the responsibility of the owner . . . ." However, a commercial vessel can't leave the wharf until Transport Canada sends an inspector and signs off on it. I guess it's the owner's responsibility to ask Transport to do the inspection and sign off. Transport Canada signs the papers saying it's good to go so you can depart.

Mr. Bernhardt: I'm not that familiar with Vancouver, but my understanding is that a lot of these vessels don't move at all as they are basically residences and quasi-permanently anchored there.

Senator Moore: Okay.

Mr. Bernhardt: They get a permit from the minister to stay there by sufferance.

Mr. Vellacott: They're not mobile.

Senator Moore: Sure they are, but they're not transiting.

Mr. Bernhardt: My understanding is that they're basically homes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): They're floating homes.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I would like to move ahead with what I suggested.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Ms. Quach would like to have additional clarification. Are we okay to put both of those in the same letter?

Mr. Albas: Madam Chair, my interpretation of what the member said is that she would like some further clarification, in particular around point 2, and I don't think anyone is in disagreement with that.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2005-168 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ORDERLY PAYMENT OF DEBTS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 15J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Moving on to Item 10 under "Progress," this file appears to have achieved some nice progress. We previously pointed out inconsistencies in the French version of the regulations. The department advises that the necessary amendments are expected to be made this fall/winter.

[Translation]

Ms. Kirkby: I would just add that two sections, in particular, should use the verb "produire," and not "déposer," in keeping with the terminology appearing throughout the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The expression "produite entre les mains du greffier de la cour," appearing in section 8 of the regulations, should simply read "produite auprès du greffier de la cour."

[English]

Senator Meredith: It strikes me that this has gone on for two years. We've written to them requesting a clarification and changes to the French version. They wrote back indicating that they're trying to get a response from the Department of Justice. That has been done. They indicate now in their last letter to us that they're seeking proposed amendments and will be working to seek approval of the changes this fall.

My recommendation is to ask where else they are writing to get approval and what their timeline is for these changes to be made.

Mr. Bernhardt: We can write back and ask if their forecast is still current. I assume that when they say "fall/winter," that means by the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. Bélanger: To whom would you write?

Senator Meredith: The Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-278 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MANITOBA FISHERY REGULATIONS, 1987

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 15K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 11 on the agenda, our committee was concerned about the scope of discretion for the provincial minister. The offending provision is set to be repealed as a result of a larger repeal. The proposed regulations fixing that issue are planned for publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette this fall.

Ms. Kirkby: Madam Chair, you have covered everything: It would resolve the committee's concerns with respect to this file, and then the new regulations would be examined as matter of course.

Mr. Anders: I suggest we monitor to see if the prepublication in the Canada Gazette occurs in the suggested time frame. If it does not receive prepublication within the new calendar, we should follow up with Fisheries and Oceans to find out why.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/93-220 — HISTORIC CANALS REGULATIONS

(For text of document, see Appendix L, p. 15L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): The next category is "Progress (?)" and Item No. 12. Our committee sought amendments to address 20 points for many different reasons. The departments started drafting the amendments in 2009. Recently the amendments were going to go directly to publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette. Now Parks Canada has decided to put the amendments in Part I in the interests of full transparency, and it would be this fall.

I'm curious and maybe others around the table are, too. Could you briefly explain to us the difference between Part I and Part II of the Gazette?

Mr. Bernhardt: In terms of regulations, the usual government process is that a proposed regulation is published in Part I of the Gazette for notice and comment, and that's notice of the intention to regulate. There's usually a period of a certain number of days.

Following that, those comments, if any, are taken into consideration and the adjustments are made. Then the regulation is made, submitted to Treasury Board, and at that point it's published in Part II of the Gazette. That's the notice of the official regulation as it's come into force.

Part I of the Gazette, of course, contains a myriad of other things. It's kind of the general newspaper of the government, various government notices and things.

But it's also the vehicle for prepublication, which is a horrible invented word. That refers to the publication in Part I, which is the publication of a proposal. Part II is then the official publication of the regulation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Do you have anything else to add on that file, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: It bears noting that the committee has encountered significant issues on this file dealing with seizure, detention, sale at the expense of the owner where the owner doesn't pay up for the costs of maintaining the property after seizure, powers of entry and inspection. On the committee's scale of things, these are fairly substantive concerns.

Senator McInnis: They are substantive. What is the reason for the delay? They seem to have been ready in April 2013, and we're now getting into the end of 2014. It will probably take two years.

It's in the Gazette how long?

Mr. Bernhardt: It's usually 60 days, but there's no requirement after that. It can be made the sixty-first day or it can be made months after.

Senator McInnis: What triggered them to go to Part I?

Mr. Bernhardt: For many years the standard government policy has been that everything should be prepublished in Part I. There is a possibility to have an exemption if you can go to Treasury Board and argue that it's a routine amendment, it's very straightforward or it's not going to affect very many people. You can get an exemption from Part I, but the assumption is everything will be prepublished in Part I unless you get a specific exemption.

I assume here, given that these are fairly significant amendments to the regulations, the decision was made that this is a case for following that usual process.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Senator McInnis, I note in my read of it that the reason they stated this was for the interests of full transparency.

Senator McInnis: Why didn't they know that in the beginning? How was that triggered? That's my question. Were people monitoring it? Were they writing letters? What was it? They could have made that determination at the beginning.

Mr. Bernhardt: Going back through the saga here, I see that in June 2010 the committee was told that they were successful in getting an exemption, so they weren't going to go with Part I publication. They were going to proceed straight to Part II. Somewhere along the way, that changed. I don't know how it changed or why it changed. We're not privy to those internal workings of the department, but it seems they lost their exemption at some point.

Senator McInnis: It is what it is. My suggestion would be that we write them in the new year and make sure they follow through.

Mr. Albas: I agree with the senator's appraisal of the situation. I was going to add that in the regulatory impact assessment statement there usually is mention of any pre-consultations done with stakeholders. I do know there have been a number of issues in the canals where more and more people are paying attention to their functioning. Therefore, it may be that in discussions with the groups there were concerns laid out about how these new regulations would be carried out.

That part of prepublication is one of the strengths of our system where anyone can write in and comment on the regulations. They did have an exemption at the beginning, but through the process of dealing with stakeholders, perhaps it was determined that they should go forward with prepublication to get that vital feedback.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: The last point indicated that the act did not provide for the seizure or sale of objects. In other words, whoever the peace officer is — and it could be anyone because it does not require a lot of training — would be acting illegally. Has the department responded to that objection? The regulations cannot provide for something that is not authorized under the act. It is well and good to make all the other corrections, but it is more than just a correction in this case. That authority does not exist under the act. The department has to be told that it must either pass the necessary legislation to obtain the authority or stop scaring people and making them think that the possibility exists under the regulations, when it does not even have that authority. If we send the department a letter, we need to point out that it does not have that authority. That is fundamental, as I see it.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Will that concern be included? Is it agreed?

Mr. Albas: Could counsel comment on that last statement, please?

Mr. Bernhardt: Assuming that in the next three weeks we don't see a proposed set of regulations we can study, when we write in January we can certainly ask whether these things are being applied and enforced in this manner, given that they are in the process of presumably eliminating these provisions. We can certainly ask the question.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2003-363 — ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 15M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 13. In 2010 these regulations were amended in an unsuccessful attempt to address our concerns. A review of the regulations started on December 18, 2013. It was suspended shortly thereafter but is to resume shortly, leading to our desired amendments.

Mr. Vellacott: I suggest we write back requesting an update and say we want to see this resolved and addressed. If you want to do it in a certain time frame, give them enough time so there's not inadequate time to respond where they're too rushed, and give us proper information this time.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 15N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): There has been a little confusion regarding Item 14 on our agenda. In May 2013, the Immigration Department said it divided the requested amendments into two groups. The first group would be published in Part I of the Canada Gazette in fall 2013 and the second at the same time in Part II. But from the August 2014 letter, we see that these amendments were not published, and now technical issues are pending.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernhardt: Exactly. The letter the department sent in 2014 indicates that two of the amendments could be published this year, whereas the other amendment could be made some time in 2015.

[English]

Mr. Clarke: I think we should write back and firm up an updated timeline on any of the outstanding points that were mentioned.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Are there any statistics showing the number of times that problems are due to poor translation or improper terminology in one language or the other? Just this morning, we have seen three or four such cases. Are there any figures on that?

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: The answer is yes and no. As the chairs are aware, one of the recent initiatives that our employers at the Library of Parliament undertook was a review of business practices at the committee's secretariat. They generally found that things were running quite well.

The second phase of that was to attempt to boost our metrics and statistics keeping. The chairs were just advised in a letter from the assistant parliamentary librarian, I think last week, that we have now begun a process of compiling more of a statistical basis. We're going to attempt to break down the points raised in terms of whether they are matters of substance, matters of drafting or English-French issues. We've been doing that for the last few weeks, but obviously it's going to take some time before we build a picture.

Mr. Bélanger: So we're going to get such a report?

Mr. Bernhardt: We will have that. The way we're doing it now is that whenever a new file or an existing file crosses one of our desks, we enter the statistics so that over the period of the next few months we should be able to build up a picture. Assuming that all of the files cross our desk by then, we will have a picture that we can present as a snapshot to give some indication of that.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Just a comment for my colleague. Having been on the committee for 20 years, I can tell you that virtually the same problems have been coming up for 20 years. In other words, the situation has not improved or gotten worse. It depends more or less on the department. Some departments are repeat offenders and pay less attention than others. And that is also true of regulations. Some departments have excellent regulations and never come up in the committee's discussions. Then, there are those that have more trouble. It has a lot to do with the individuals involved. It depends on the person drafting the regulations in the department; there are certainly not 50 people doing that job. I want to commend our staff on how hard they work to identify problems of substance and language. And by language, I mean ambiguity as well as semantics.

Mr. Bélanger: Counsel said they have been collecting this data for a while now. Is it possible to get a sense of where things stand, at this point? Is that possible?

The reason I bring it up — and I am convinced that my colleague is right — is that, if 25 per cent of the issues are due to a lack of understanding of the two languages within certain departments, perhaps we can give them that information so they can correct their own problems so they do not keep happening. It would be nice to have those statistics if they are available at this time.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: It's not terribly scientific, by any means, but the figures we've always given out as estimates are that, generally, objections are raised with anywhere from 20 to 25 per cent of instruments made. Of that percentage, probably 80 per cent deal with drafting issues or English-French discrepancies, and the remainder of that, 20 per cent of the 20 per cent, are issues of substance. As I say, that's by no means a scientific analysis.

Mr. Albas: On the November 17, 2014, memorandum to the committee that Mr. Belanger requested, of the 148 files submitted to the committee — and these are just from three meetings — 68 were submitted without comment; eight were closed, with over 30 amendments in total. The files closed with "reply satisfactory" or otherwise not being pursued were three, and the files to routinely follow up as to progress or promised action, on which matters appear to be proceeding at least somewhat satisfactorily, were 50. So of the 148 files received in those three meetings, 129 of them have had a positive response. That's 87 per cent, Madam Chair. I would point out that 87 per cent, from just a sampling of files like that, sounds very consistent with what Senator Hervieux-Payette and our counsel have raised.

I'm happy to hear that we are keeping statistics, but just to let members know, we already get a lot of these things from our counsel. I appreciate the work on this.

Mr. Bélanger: I appreciate the comments, but the reason I brought it up, Madam Chair, is that if we can determine that a certain percentage — and I'm hearing it may be as high as a quarter or even more — are generated because of poor work in terms of linguistics in certain departments, then perhaps we can encourage those very departments to take a look at how they are proceeding. That might create a situation where we could substantially reduce the number of instances that are brought to this committee and therefore expedite the whole regulatory process.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Which is always what we're looking for, so I guess that's why we're keeping statistics.

Back to Item 14, there was a proposal from Mr. Clarke to write back. Do we have agreement on that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 15O:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 15 on our agenda is similar to the last file. There's some confusion on this one. There is one outstanding issue regarding uniformity and language, and a correction is still expected.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernhardt: The situation in this case is similar to the one in the previous file. The department's letter indicates that an amendment could be made this year.

[English]

Mr. Clarke: I would suggest we write back to them and ask for a timeline as to when that's going to take place.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 15P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 16. Parks Canada had previously agreed to make the necessary amendments to address our committee's concerns. Now other competing legislative initiatives have delayed the development of the miscellaneous amendment regulations.

Ms. Kirkby: Just to add, the concerns related to undue discretion phrasing such as "in his or her opinion" or "in a condition satisfactory to the Superintendent," and the current expected completion date is by the end of 2015.

Mr. Breitkreuz: This is under the heading of "Progress?" I think we should monitor the file to make sure that progress continues.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-8 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 15Q:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Item 17 falls under the heading "Action Promised (?)". I notice that counsel seems to have gone into a fair bit of detail on this one. I'm not sure if that has to do with the fact that we have these regulations dealing with wine labelling, but that might be possible.

Seriously, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency advises that it understands the concern raised and that it will be taken into consideration in aligning its act with the regulations for the new Safe Food for Canadians Act.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's basically correct. The issue here concerns the exceptions to heights of letters on certain labels on wine bottles. I won't go into explaining the ins and outs. It was suggested that I should bring some visual aids. Unfortunately, I did not.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): It's maybe a little early in the morning.

Mr. Bernhardt: In any event, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency says that it understands the problem, but it hasn't really given any indication how and when it intends to address it, other than indicating it will take it into consideration in the course of aligning the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and its regulations with the new Safe Food for Canadians Act.

On other files, the committee's been told that regulations under the Safe Food for Canadians Act are now expected sometime in 2015. Presumably, at that point, these amendments to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act regulations will also come forward. It may be worth, however, trying to get something a little more specific from the department as to exactly how it intends to take the problem into consideration.

Senator Meredith: I concur with counsel's viewpoint with respect to a timeline. With all these files continuously going back and forth with letters, I'd like to see firm commitments from the department as to when our concerns are to be taken seriously.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Agreed.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-201 — ORDER 2014-87-07-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 15R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): With regard to Item 18 under "Action Taken," as counsel stated in the memo, this instrument makes two amendments to correct discrepancies between the French and English versions of the Domestic Substances List.

Mr. Bernhardt: This file can be closed.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2014-228 — TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ORDER (CUSTOMS TARIFF, 2014)

(For text of documents, see Appendix S, p. 15S:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Next is Item 19. This amendment corrects a drafting issue and a discrepancy between the English and French versions, corrects two problems of inconsistent terminology, and resolves two discrepancies between English and French. Can we close this file as well?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2014-15 — PROCLAMATION GIVING NOTICE THAT THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN CANADA AND THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN CANADA AND THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA ARE IN FORCE AS OF MARCH 1, 2014

SI/2014-18 — ORDER FIXING APRIL 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-71 — ORDER FIXING AUGUST 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-72 — ORDER FIXING CERTAIN DATES AS THE DAYS ON WHICH CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2014-73 — ORDER DESIGNATING THE MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE TO BE THE MINISTER REFERRED TO IN THE ACT

SI/2014-74 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT COMES INTO FORCE

SI/2104-75 — ORDER FIXING OCTOBER 1, 2014 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SOR/2013-227 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-55 — ORDER IMPOSING MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE EXTRAORDINARY DISRUPTION TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN RELATION TO GRAIN MOVEMENT

SOR/2014-99 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (MECHANICALLY TENDERIZED BEEF)

SOR/2014-147 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES

SOR/2014-172 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES (UKRAINE) REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-177 — DISPOSAL AT SEA PERMIT APPLICATION REGULATIONS

SOR/2014-178 — ORDER 2014-87-06-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2014-179 — ORDER 2014-66-06-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2014-182 — ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER DECLARING AN AMNESTY PERIOD (2014)

SOR/2014-189 — ORDER SPECIFYING THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF GRAIN TO BE MOVED

SOR/2014-197 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PARI-MUTUEL BETTING SUPERVISION REGULATIONS

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): We have 18 "Statutory Instruments Without Comment." I congratulate counsel for the good work in making sure that all of those things get put to a conclusion.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, I'd like to make an observation. I've been on the Hill for over 20 years, and I think this committee works better than any other committee. I would like to thank our joint chairs for the work they do and wish them a happy holiday.

We should really thank our staff for the support we get as they do an excellent job. We noted several times today how counsel picks out things that we would often miss. I would like to thank everybody very much for the way this committee is conducted, the way we work together and the support we get.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger: I just want to say that I intend to follow up on the wine labelling.

The Joint Chair (Senator Batters): I also provide my best wishes to everyone for a Merry Christmas and happy holidays. We will see you in the new year.

(The committee adjourned.)

---