---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 2 - Evidence - December 5, 2013

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 2013

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day, at 8:32 a.m., for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator Bob Runciman and Ms. Chris Charlton (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Good morning, everyone. I would like to call the meeting to order. We will jump right in, starting with the Special Agenda Items.

REINTRODUCTION OF BILL S-2, THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE IN REGULATIONS ACT

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): The first item is a reintroduction of Bill S-2. We had a very lengthy discussion here about the earlier iteration. There are no changes to the bill as far as I know, so I think there are two questions for the committee, because the membership changed just a bit. First, are we still comfortable with the position that this committee took last time around on S-2? Second, if we are, do we want to make the same submission again to the Senate committee?

Mr. Albas: Madam Chair, the thing is that if the bill hasn't changed, a significant amount of time and energy went into it. From my perspective, I don't think there's much to be changed. Unless members have other suggestions, if we're asked to submit, I suggest we resubmit what was put forth last time.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed? So we will send a submission to the Senate committee on Bill S-2.

SOR/2005-173 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, IV, V AND VII)

SOR/2005-348 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND V)

SOR/2005-354 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART I)

SOR/2006-77 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI AND VII)

SOR/2006-85 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND III)

SOR/2006-199 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI, VII AND VIII)

SOR/2006-352 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND IV)

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

SOR/2009-90 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI AND VII)

SOR/2009-280 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, II, IV AND VII)

SOR/2011-284 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND IV — CONDUCT OF FLIGHT TESTS)

INTERIM ORDER NO. 11 RESPECTING PRIVATE OPERATORS (2013)

SOR/2002-182 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART VI)

SOR/2005-341 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, II AND VI)

SOR/2007-229 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART IV)

SOR/2007-262 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND III)

SOR/2007-290 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, III AND VIII)

SOR/2009-152 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I AND VII)

SOR/2011-285 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, III AND VI — MARKING AND LIGHTING)

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 2A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item No. 2 under Special Agenda Items — which, as you will note, is a bit of a dog's breakfast of regulations — we raised 183 points with respect to these regulations, and we have had no response to 97 of them. Amendments were promised on 72.

On the whole, we have not received a reply in any kind of reasonable time frame. I first of all trust that all committee members are comfortable with us dealing with these matters as a group, as proposed by counsel.

I will like to turn the floor over to counsel. Enjoy.

[Translation]

Jacques Rousseau, Counsel to the Committee: As you pointed out, the correspondence pertains to 183 points in all, and the department has yet to respond to 97 of them. The department responded to 9 points initially but failed to provide additional information when it was requested.

This special agenda item covers all the files in which correspondence relating to the regulations is ongoing with the Department of Transport.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the problem the committee is having is due mainly to the fact that the department has been slow in responding to multiple points, and in some cases, the correspondence dates back to 2009. With that in mind, what the committee should be most concerned about is not so much the actual points, but rather, the department's failure to keep its promise to respond to the issues raised by the committee.

All of these files were grouped together because, rather than continuing to respond to files individually, on January 10, 2013, the department sent a general letter that pertained to a number of files. Explaining the delay in responding to the committee's points, the department listed the many priorities that had led it to change its course of action to address certain urgent issues. The department went on to say that this had affected the timelines it had provided to the committee. In addition, the department indicated that it was aware of the fact that some of the committee's comments were several years old and had therefore established a steering committee in order to take more concrete measures in 2013 to address all of the issues in question.

The department also wrote that, in 2013, it anticipated the coming into force of an amendment to the regulations that would make it possible to meet a number of the commitments made to the committee, in particular, with regard to seven files.

At its meeting of May 23, 2013, the committee reviewed the letter and examined 11 texts relating to the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The committee decided to write to the department about the 11 texts, sending a letter on May 28, 2013, with a copy to the minister. The letter was accompanied by a note providing, for each text, a summary of the correspondence, the number of points raised, the amendments promised, the replies deemed satisfactory by the committee, and all of the comments in respect of the points to which the department had yet to respond. At that same meeting, the committee requested that the 11 texts be revisited in the fall of 2013.

The department's response, sent on October 3, 2013, pertained to 13 texts in all. It did not respond to the points that were still outstanding. It indicated that the departmental steering committee met regularly and would assume responsibility for setting priorities at its upcoming meetings in line with the various priorities that require amendments to the regularly framework of civil aviation.

The department indicated that it would provide the committee with a reply this fall regarding the 28 points raised in connection with SOR/2009-280.

In regard to the promised amendments, the department anticipated that 6 of them would be made in 2013. As for the 56 promised amendments it anticipated would be published as draft regulations in the fall of 2013, the department indicated that they would instead be published in the first few months of 2014.

It is worth noting that, according to the department's web site, the amendments concerning business aviation should be made in the fall of 2013, thereby addressing four amendments promised as part of the review of SOR/2005-341. However, given that the draft regulations have yet to be published, they will certainly not be published this year.

In short, since the committee met on May 23, 2013, little progress has been made in regard to this file. In all likelihood, the promised amendments will not be made this year. The department has already announced that the publication of draft regulations anticipated for this year would be postponed. The committee still has not received the responses promised. The committee must now decide how it wishes to proceed, especially as regards the 97 points and the 9 additional comments the department has yet to address.

Finally, I would remind the committee that the joint chairs had already written to the minister to request his cooperation in obtaining from the department responses to two files. Subsequently, the department sent the general letter of January 10, 2013, which I summarized a moment ago.

Such letters only make the committee's job harder, as you can see this morning from the size of the file. Perhaps the committee should suggest to the department that it go back to sending separate letters for each file.

That said, I look forward to hearing what the committee members have to say to ascertain how they wish to proceed in this matter.

[English]

Mr. Breitkreuz: There is indeed a situation here. You can tell by the thickness of the file. The translation is very good, but did I understand you to say that you met with them already?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: No, not on this file. On another file, the department suggested that we meet, and we agreed. In the end, the department decided not to meet in regard to the file. But it involved another file. It seems to be quite difficult to meet with department officials.

[English]

Mr. Breitkreuz: There seems to be an issue here. I think you have to press for a meeting. I would like to suggest that counsel meet with these officials to relay our concern in regard to this large file.

I wonder if we need to build some kind of understanding between this committee and those officials. I mean, I understand your frustration.

I think that if they have agreed to meet, they should meet with us. Summer may not be the best time to do these things, but we need to press for a meeting and stress that we need clarification of all of these outstanding issues. If that doesn't happen, I think we will have to take another step.

They need to understand that this cannot be left as it is, that it has to be dealt with. Like I said before, we need to build an understanding between this committee and them that this has to be clarified. We need to move on with this.

That would be my suggestion. Other committee members may have a comment, but to me this is not acceptable. They have got to understand.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: It is as unmanageable for staff as it is for members.

Mr. Breitkreuz: It's unbelievable. I think you need to meet with them and impress on them that we are concerned and that they need to address this or we will have to take a further step.

Senator Moore: I completely agree with the comments of Mr. Breitkreuz. Didn't staff do a survey for us earlier this year, end of last year, as to the delinquent departments? I think this was the worst offender. Wasn't transportation near the top anyway?

Mr. Bernhardt: I don't believe they were on the list at that time. They are probably the largest regulator in the federal government in terms of sheer volume of regulations.

Senator Moore: Just to repeat, I think you have to press for a meeting. They have to know that if they decline, they can expect to be called before this committee.

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

Mr. Albas: To clarify, I think we should press for a meeting. If we do not get satisfaction within a reasonable time, I would like this to be brought up at the next meeting. We can then talk about next steps because we may want to bring a letter to the minister. Sometimes ministerial involvement significantly changes the response we get from officials from time to time, and I think that's the right thing.

Right now I think we should focus on what Mr. Breitkreuz has suggested and then bring it to the next committee. To me, that's a reasonable amount of time.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/94-439 — NATIONAL PARKS CAMPING REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/94-512 — NATIONAL PARKS GENERAL REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 2B:1.)

SOR/2000-183 — REGULATIONS AMENDING AND REPEALING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY, 1999-2 (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 2C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): This is another one of those instances where we as a committee have expressed concerns about how fee-setting provisions interact and how they operate together as part of two regulations.

The department, though, in this case doesn't deem it necessary to proceed with further amendments. Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. This file was one of the files put over at the last meeting together with the following one, Item 4. The issue is very similar so perhaps those two files could be dealt with together, if members concur.

Starting first with fees for national parks, as was indicated at the last meeting, the main aspect of the committee's concern has been addressed by recent amendments to the Canada National Parks Act. Those amendments now make it clear that fees can be imposed for the use of national parks under other legislation, specifically, the Parks Canada Agency Act.

The second aspect that always concerned the committee was that if one accepts there are alternate ways to impose a fee, there's at least the possibility that you could have multiple fees for the same park or the same use of a facility.

Practically, the possibility of that may be somewhat remote but the committee has always taken the view that the situation could be easily clarified to then once and for all preclude any possibility of such a situation occurring and people having to go to court to get it all sorted out.

Something I did allude to at the last meeting was that given the existence of the minister's power to fix fees simply on an administrative basis under the Parks Canada Agency Act, one wonders if the regulation-making powers to fix fees will ever be used. It's worth noting the first thing that was done when those ministerial powers came in was that all the regulations that set fees for parks were simply revoked and replaced with the ministerial fees. After all, if you have an easier way to do something — which is simply to have the minister fix a fee — why would you go through the regulatory process in the first place to do same thing?

That leads to the question of whether the regulation-making powers to fix the fees are even necessary. If they're not, they could be revoked. That would clear up any possibility of a conflict, and I think one recommendation would be that it's a suggestion that might be made to the minister as a way of seeking a resolution.

A similar situation arises with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency fees. There's a ministerial power under the act to fix the fees. There were also a number of agriculture statutes that each, on their own, included a power to make a regulation fixing fees.

Again, what happened was all those provisions were revoked from the various sets of regulations when the minister got this power and simply replaced with a fees notice.

As well, a further development in relation to the agriculture fees is that we now have the Safe Food for Canadians Act which replaces a lot of these individual statutes — the Fish Inspection Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act and so on.

The new act doesn't contain a regulation-making power to fix fees, presumably because it wasn't considered necessary anymore. The question then arises: Could that same approach be taken for the other agriculture statutes, with the regulation-making powers being taken out of those as well? Then you would simply have the minister's power to fix the fees administratively, which is what's happening now. Again, you would remove the possibility of overlap.

That suggestion was made in a previous letter to the minister. The response didn't address the suggestion. Perhaps it could be made again, emphasizing what was done with the Safe Food for Canadians Act as a possible model.

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

Ms. Ambler: Thank you for bringing this back to us. The parliamentary secretary and I did have a chance to discuss it, and I think we agree that this is really about operations. While there might be the possibility of overlap, it is highly unlikely that we would find ourselves in a situation where the minister and the Governor-in-Council both set fees for the same thing. Politically, it is highly unlikely they would do that. Ultimately, because this is about operations, we would be reaching outside our mandate as a committee to try to fix this.

I would suggest the recommendation be that counsel write a report allowing this potential overlap to be noted; it is worthy of pointing out. The suggestion is that we send that information to Parliament, and they may decide to fix it at a future date. Ultimately, it is not ours to decide which way to go, and so the goal would be to close the file at that point.

Mr. Bélanger: Could counsel remind us whether there was an incident of this type of overlap or conflict that ended up in a court case with considerable cost to the Crown?

Mr. Bernhardt: There was a somewhat similar situation years ago that involved Canada Post and postal rates whereby rates at the time were fixed by the statute; then a power was conferred on the corporation to set postal rates. They changed the postal rates. Someone contested them saying they didn't have to pay the increased rates because an act of Parliament set the lower rate. The question was which rate was in effect and did the fact that the corporation had the power to set a rate and override the statutory rate.

It's a somewhat similar situation. Those are very rare, but as was pointed out, it can happen. Is it likely to happen? Probably not.

Mr. Bélanger: But it can happen.

Mr. Bernhardt: In theory.

Mr. Albas: Would Bill S-2 not resolve the issue because it's incorporation by reference with the Canada Post rate- setting.

Mr. Bernhardt: The situation is resolved because a rate is no longer in the Canada Post Act.

Mr. Albas: That will never happen.

Mr. Bélanger: In this situation, we're not dealing with incorporation by reference. If it arose, we would have a fee set by regulation and a fee fixed by the minister. That could happen in theory.

Mr. Albas: In this regard, it is important to point out that the committee's work over the last 10 years on this particular file has been very effective, but one thing we need to keep in mind is the fact that Parliament has made an amendment and that amendment addresses what it is. We're really here to talk about subordinate legislation, not to talk about what may or may not happen. I do think there is public value in having a report to both houses drafted and viewed by this committee before it is sent, outlining that this could be a potential conflict and that the government should be mindful. We as legislators need to talk to our respective leadership in cases like these to make sure these things are clarified from the outset.

The committee has done excellent work on that. We have seen substantial amendments that will now take care of the situation.

Senator Moore: I want to be clear. Counsel, are you recommending a letter or a report, like our colleague recommended, or a combination of both?

Mr. Bernhardt: Our initial suggestion was to go back to the minister one more time. If members wanted to approach the matter more formally through a report, we would prepare the draft report and bring it to the committee.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Just to be clear, we are dealing with both items together, so our report would also deal with both items.

Mr. Bélanger: We're not closing the case.

Mr. Albas: Not until the courts say.

Mr. Bernhardt: As I understand it at this time, the instruction of the committee would be to prepare a draft report and bring it to the committee for consideration.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-122 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CERTIFICATION OF ORIGIN OF GOODS EXPORTED TO A FREE TRADE PARTNER REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-127 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE TARIFF ITEM NOS. 9971.00.00 AND 9992.00.00 ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-128 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE TEMPORARY IMPORTATION (TARIFF ITEM NO. 9993.00.00) REGULATIONS

SOR/2004-129 — CCRFTA VERIFICATION OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2005-257 — DEFINITION OF ``SETTLER'' FOR THE PURPOSE OF TARIFF ITEM NO. 9807.00.00 REGULATIONS

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is SOR/2004-122. The question in this case is whether the appropriate minister recommended the regs under the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff. Counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct. Each of these regulations was made under provisions of the two acts that state that the regulations were to be made on the recommendation of the Minister of National Revenue. In all cases, they were made by another minister.

Under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, the Governor-in-Council has the authority to transfer powers, duties or functions or control or supervision of any portion of the federal public administration from one minister to another or from one department to another.

A series of orders was made in 2003 under that act that transferred control and supervision over certain portions of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to the CBSA. However, these orders didn't make any reference to the transfer of powers, duties or functions from one minister to the other. The CBSA maintained that the power to recommend regulations that was given to the Minister of National Revenue under the two acts was transferred by implication.

The joint committee has disagreed with this view on the grounds that it ignores a distinction made in the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act between transfer of powers, duties and functions, and transfer of control and supervision. I should emphasize that the committee has never claimed that the Minister of National Revenue's power to recommend regulations couldn't have been transferred, only that it should have been done explicitly. A number of examples of such an approach were given to the CBSA.

By now, I would suggest the committee's main focus is to make sure that similar situations don't arise in the future.

The committee has the minister's May 8 letter in response to earlier correspondence from the joint chairs of the committee. What members unfortunately don't have before them this morning, and I apologize for that, is the letters that the joint chairs sent to the minister that the minister is now replying to. That was an unfortunate oversight.

Given the stage the file is at, might I suggest that the file be deferred until the next meeting so we can assemble and have all correspondence properly before the committee at that time?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-156 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REPORTABLE DISEASES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, p. 2D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Moving on to Item 6 on our agenda, under ``New Instruments,'' at issue here is the delay in registering the regulations. These are regulations amending the reportable diseases regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: I would like to point out that the making of SOR/2012-156 provided an opportunity to rectify a drafting problem raised by the committee in connection with the Reportable Diseases Regulations.

As you mentioned, the problem with SOR/2012-156 has to do with a delay in registering the amending regulations. The Statutory Instruments Act requires that a regulation or regulatory amendment be submitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration within seven days of its making.

In its May 24, 2013 letter, the Privy Council Office indicated that it had received the amendment to the Reportable Diseases Regulations within the prescribed time frame. The problem is the 16—day delay between the making of the regulations and their registration. The Privy Council Office was asked whether the regulations had been received on time, and it replied that they had been.

The Privy Council Office attributed the delay in registering the regulations to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's request that their coming into force be coordinated with the coming into force of related amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations. One cannot help but wonder why the agency did not explain that, itself, in the letter it sent on October 30, 2012. No doubt, that would have made things easier for everyone involved. Regardless, the bottom line is that the deadline prescribed by Parliament was met and that the Privy Council Office found the agency's request to be reasonable. If the committee is in agreement, this file can be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-80 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PLANT PROTECTION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, p. 2E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): With regard to Item 7 under ``New Instruments,'' we had asked for the date of repeal of the Emerald Ash Borer Infested Places Order. Counsel had requested that from the ministry, and it looks like we received a certified copy.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: It was needed to determine the day on which the Regulations amending the Plant Protection Regulations came into force. There was confusion as to whether it was the date that the minister repealed the order or the date that the regulations were registered if the registration was done afterwards.

The copy provided by the agency shows that the minister signed the revocation of declaration on April 25, 2013. Since the amendment was registered after that date, April 26, 2013, that is the date on which the amendment came into force.

I would also point out that the agency has since updated its web site. No further action is needed on this file, so it can be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-64 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, p. 2F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 8 under ``Reply Unsatisfactory'' has to do with whether ``without delay'' is a vague term or a precise term. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development disagrees that the requirement that a decision on a request for reconsideration be rendered ``without delay'' is vague. The department does agree that it means within a reasonable time under the particular circumstances.

Counsel, do you want to take us through the difference between ``a reasonable time'' and ``without delay''?

Mr. Bernhardt: I would suggest that a requirement that something be done within a reasonable time under the circumstances is an inherently vague requirement. The department says that's what they mean, and I think the point is what they mean is inherently vague.

There were a couple of authorities quoted to the department from legal and legislative drafting texts who made precisely that point. It turns out from the reply that, in fact, the idea behind this provision is not even to provide a time within which the decision must be made. According to the department, it is ``to alert those seeking reconsideration of a decision that the decision will be made within a reasonable time.''

I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that if that provision wasn't there, people might think that it could be made in an unreasonable time.

Without belabouring what is a relatively small point, what we're dealing with is simply some useless verbiage that could safely be deleted — it serves no purpose. Perhaps counsel could try again.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Who's on first?

Senator Batters: Maybe I practised law too long, but ``without delay'' doesn't really seem to be that vague to me. Could counsel enlighten us as to whether that phrase is used in much other federal legislation or regulations, or whether it is almost never used?

Mr. Bernhardt: It tends to be something the committee fairly routinely objects to.

I can but refer to Mr. Thornton and Mr. Salembier's text. They say things like ``as soon as practicable,'' ``without delay,'' ``forthwith'' and ``immediately'' are ``very elastic and vary from case to case.'' According to Thornton:

Each has been construed in a variety of ways according to context and to judicial taste. . . . The use of any of these phrases amounts to an invitation to the judiciary to fix the period considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Senator Batters: Okay. Given that Justice drafting lawyers are writing these texts, maybe we should write to the Department of Justice or cc the ministry and refer to those saying, ``Hey, these are your people saying this, but yet we seem to be at a standstill with the department.'' We could then include a copy of report No. 60 of the committee. Let them handle it from there to close it.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any other comments on this file? It looks like we have agreement on that.

SOR/2011-237 — BALLAST WATER CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, p. 2G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Item 9 falls under ``Part Action Promised.'' We're still waiting for timelines with respect to the second to the eighth points that we had raised at an earlier committee meeting.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct, Madam Chair.

On point 1 that was raised in the correspondence, the department's reply could be taken as satisfactory. At this point, it is probably simply a matter of writing back and asking if they can provide an expected time frame.

I should mention for the record that these amendments addressed 21 concerns raised by committee in connection with the previous ballast water regulations. Most of these concerned matters of drafting and English-French equivalency. However, there was one issue of legality as well as a concern that the previous regulations were creating new offences by way of regulation. Those have now all been resolved.

Mr. Schellenberger: To see that some progress has been made, I think we should write back asking for a progress report, if that would be satisfactory.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Are there any other comments on this file? We will write back to the minister yet again, asking for a timeline.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2001-167 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/2004-280 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS, 1990

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, p. 2H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Under ``Part Action Taken'' are regulations amending the Meat Inspection Regulations. The committee will recall that we sent a letter in January of this year. Our third point was addressed, but points 2, 15 and 16 still remain outstanding.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Three points still need to be addressed. Point 2 is a matter of correcting the drafting of the Meat Inspection Regulations so that the wording is consistent with that used by Parliament in the French version of the Meat Inspection Act and in the Safe Food for Canadians Act that will replace it when it comes into force.

The coming into force of the Safe Food for Canadians Act will also allow for the provisions of the regulations in question in points 15 and 16 of the January 28, 2013 letter to be made again. These provisions require that an operator or importer who learns that their product might constitute a risk to the public's health notify an inspector; they must prepare a recall procedure and operators must prepare written procedures and keep records for receiving, investigating and responding to product complaints.

In the absence of enabling clauses clearly authorizing their making, the committee questioned the validity of the provisions. When it passed the new Safe Food for Canadians Act, Parliament included, in section 51, several enabling clauses concerning the matters covered by the regulatory provisions contested by the committee. The provisions appear in the note accompanying the file.

In addition, Parliament added section 19.1 to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, which authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the recall of products regulated under an act or provision that the agency enforces or administers. Like the enabling provisions of section 51 of the Safe Food for Canadians Act mentioned earlier, section 19.1 is, however, not yet in force.

The agency has always maintained that the regulatory provisions contested by the committee are valid. The committee argued that, since Parliament deemed it necessary to delegate new regulatory powers, it would seem natural for the disputed regulatory provisions to be made again when the new powers were in force. In its June 18, 2013 letter, the agency confirmed that that would be the case.

Follow-up will be necessary to see how the matter is actually handled.

[English]

Mr. Vellacott: I think I'm hearing from our good, helpful counsel that the best thing might be to keep an eye on it, monitor it, and see how it goes forward. That's what I would suggest.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed

SOR/2000-187 — AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

SOR/2002-183 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

SOR/2003-256 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, p. 2I:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Next is Item 11 under ``Reply Unsatisfactory (?).'' There are three regulations here from CFIA with respect to the outstanding issue of English and French harmonization. We are being promised action, but without a timeline.

Fifty-eight regulatory amendments are being promised ``over the next two years.'' I will leave it to counsel to explain whether that's without delay or within a reasonable time frame.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Sometimes an intended time frame of two years lasts longer. Clearly, the main issue in this case is when the amendment to correct section 11(3) of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act will be made. It is obvious that the agency does not know when the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill will be introduced, and the committee, as you know, has been monitoring this file for a long time and is still waiting for the bill to be brought forward.

Is the committee satisfied with the agency's response even though it still does not know when the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill will be introduced?

[English]

Senator Tannas: As I read this, there was a promise to get some things done by the end of this year, so let's follow up early in the new year with the department.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2004-195 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (REAR IMPACT GUARDS)

(For text of documents, see Appendix J, p. 2J:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): The next heading on our agenda is ``Progress.'' Item 12 deals with a promised amendment that should be made by the end of 2013. We're getting awfully close to 2013.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's the question at this point. Depending on the instruction from the committee, we can either ask for an update now or wait until the new year to see if the amendment is made in the next few weeks.

Mr. Albas: Similar to the last situation, I think we should follow up in the new year.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, p. 2K:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): With respect to this item, again it is an issue of timing. We were promised a set of amendments in the fall of 2013, or at least the adoption of some amendments. The second set was to be adopted in the winter of 2013, which gives us to March 31 or March 20.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: The department told the committee that, since some of the proposed regulations relating to the amendments must be tabled before Parliament, the proposed amendments were divided into two sets: those that have to be tabled before Parliament and those that do not. The department indicated when it expected the amendments to be published or made.

In preparing for the meeting, counsel learned that the first set had not been made and that the second set had not been pre-published. The last letter received from the department is dated May 10, 2013.

If the committee is in agreement, counsel suggests writing to the department in early January for an update.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): This item again deals with the same issue of timing. Counsel, did you want to add comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: This is another case where the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations were divided into two sets. As in the previous file, committee counsel suggests writing to the department in early January for an update.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-206 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, p. 2L:1.)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Shall we do the same thing for this item? Counsel, do you want make some comments first?

Mr. Bernhardt: By way of background, members may recall there was a theme at the last meeting about regulations being lumped into broader initiatives.

On this file, the committee had written to the minister expressing its concern that delays had been encountered in completing certain promised amendments. In this case, the minister replied that she was concerned as well and agreed to separate out the amendments that would resolve the committee's concerns from the broader package. I would underline for members that there was some success in getting that done in this instance.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Charlton): Thank you.

Do we have agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2006-75 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS, 2001

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, p. 2M:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under the heading ``Progress (?),'' these regulations amend the Canada Business Corporations Regulations. The act stipulates that every corporation shall send an annual return to the director on the prescribed date. The regulations prescribe a 60-day time period but not a date. They have indicated their intention to amend, but again haven't given us a timeline.

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: I just have one thing to add, Mr. Chair. The commitment to amend section 263 dates back to February 5, 2007. At that time, the department wrote that it would ask the Department of Justice about the possibility of using the miscellaneous statute law amendment program. The department later indicated that the opportunity to make the promised amendment through the program or as part of the amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act had not presented itself.

In its letter of May 13, 2013, the department wrote that the promised amendment could not be made through the miscellaneous statute law amendment program because the amendment was not minor. It added that the government planned to launch a broader public consultation on the Canada Business Corporations Act and that it would ensure the matter was brought to the minister's attention the next time an opportunity to propose legislative amendments arose.

As you mentioned, the department has not given us a timeline. The issue for the committee to decide is what the next step should be.

Mr. Bélanger: If the regulations are amended or corrected, there is no need to amend the act, is that correct?

Mr. Rousseau: In a sense, yes. If the department decided to change tactics and, rather than seeking an amendment to the act so as to be authorized to prescribe a period instead of a date, it could amend the regulations and prescribe a date. There is only one instance in Canada in which this approach is used. Only one province requires corporate returns to be submitted by a specific date prescribed by law.

Therefore, the committee has always considered that what Parliament actually intended was to grant the authority to prescribe a period. There was agreement in that regard, and that is one reason why the committee has remained so patient up to now.

Now, it is clear that the intention was to prescribe a period. That is what the regulations currently do and how the department wishes to proceed. But in order to establish that legally, the department must amend the act.

Mr. Bélanger: Amend the act.

Mr. Rousseau: Exactly.

[English]

Mr. Anders: I think it's perfectly appropriate to write back asking for a timeline.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I was wondering whether not publishing things on time or not having a specific date could hurt shareholders; an annual return is, after all, an important document. It gives shareholders all the information. We are talking about the mechanism. But perhaps we should discuss the real issue. In other words, what are the disadvantages of not having a specific date?

Mr. Rousseau: As I said, we looked all over and found that every province in the country, except for one, prescribes a period, 60 days after the end of the year.

I am hardly in a position to speak for shareholders, but this approach is common practice throughout the country and people seem to be fairly satisfied with it. Regardless, the period in question is 60 days after the anniversary date of incorporation of the corporation. So the period referred to is fairly specific and reasonable. As to whether it hurts shareholders, I am in no position to answer that.

Mr. Bélanger: Would amending the regulations to read ``within 60 days of this date'' fix the problem?

Mr. Rousseau: No. That is what the regulations say now. The problem being flagged by the committee is that the act requires that the return be sent on a prescribed date, not within a period of time.

The regulations already prescribe a period, but under the act, they must prescribe a date. Everyone agrees that the true intent is to prescribe a period, but that is not what the act provides for right now.

Mr. Bélanger: I am a bit shocked that this amendment was not included in one of the many omnibus bills we have seen in the past.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): What is the committee's wish? We have a suggestion from Mr. Anders that we ask for an indication of when this will be dealt with. Is there anything additional to that or has the committee agreed that that's the appropriate course of action?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, p. 2N:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 17 is somewhat similar. This is a minor correction of the wording in the English version. The department initially indicated that it would deal with this matter, but nothing has happened. An interesting quote in the response is ``no developments regarding this file that might be of interest to the joint committee.'' We might have a different view of that. Are there comments?

Counsel, will you expand on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Rousseau: Mr. Chair, you brought up the same quote I was thinking of, so I do not have anything to add in that respect. I was going to point out the same thing to the committee members, and you just did so quite well.

Given how minor the promised correction is, perhaps I could ask the committee whether it would be willing to wait until the end of the consultations announced by the department or whether it would like to know the time frame for the consultations, first.

That is the question I am asking the committee members today.

[English]

Senator Batters: Yes, maybe we could write back to ask for a time line. We don't necessarily know what that consultation process involves.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, p. 2O:1.)

SOR/2005-256 — TARIFF CLASSIFICATION ADVANCE RULINGS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix P, p. 2P:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Items 18 and 19 appear under the heading ``Action Promised.'' It has been indicated to us that they are going to proceed. How do we wish to deal with these? Keep on top of them and monitor?

Mr. Bernhardt: We can certainly continue to monitor.

With regard to Item 18, members may recall from the last session that the committee spent considerable time dealing with the Chicken Farmers of Canada. On this particular file, we now have promised amendments, at last on all of the concerns. That is a significant accomplishment for the committee, given what they went through in the last session. It has been indicated that some of these amendments are being drafted, so perhaps we might inquire as to precisely which ones are being drafted.

Mr. Albas: Mr. Chair, I congratulate counsel and the committee. As you know, the lawyers for the chicken farmers sent a very substantive reply. We stood our ground on our dissatisfaction with the current situation. We have made some strides so I want to say ``good job'' to counsel.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Hear, hear.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Shall we continue to keep an eye on this?

Mr. Albas: Yes, absolutely. We've made great progress. I look forward with great interest to closing this file.

Senator Moore: Is it necessary to write another letter or will we monitor the file? Somebody said a letter was appropriate.

Mr. Bernhardt: We could write to ask for a progress report.

Senator Moore: We could do that.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2011-264 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (INTERPRETATION AND STANDARDS 207 AND 210)

(For text of documents, see Appendix Q, p. 2Q:1.)

SOR/2013-165 — GENERAL PREFERENTIAL TARIFF AND LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRY TARIFF RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix R, p. 2R:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): There are two items under ``Action Taken.'' Do you want to speak to both of those, counsel?

Mr. Bernhardt: I just note for the record, Mr. Chair, that three amendments promised to the committee were made by those two instruments.

SI/2013-46 — AMINA DAHER REMISSION ORDER

SI/2013-47 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2013-51 — ORDER RENAMING THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES NAVAL JACK AS THE CANADIAN NAVAL ENSIGN AND APPROVING ITS USE BY THE CANADIAN FORCES

SI/2013-53 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (TUKTUT NOGAIT NATIONAL PARK OF CANADA) ORDER

SI/2013-56 — ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN PASSPORT CANADA FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

SI/2013-58 — ORDER FIXING JUNE 9, 2013 AS THE DAY ON WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COME INTO FORCE

SI/2013-59 — WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF TERRITORIAL LANDS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (EDÉHZHÍE (HORN PLATEAU)) ORDER

SOR/87-650 — CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/87-651— CANADIAN CHICKEN ORDERLY MARKETING REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

SOR/88-379 — CANOLA STABILIZATION REGULATIONS, 1986

SOR/88-380 — CANOLA STABILIZATION REGULATIONS, 1987

SOR/88-381 — SOUR CHERRY STABILIZATION REGULATIONS, 1987

SOR/2012-272 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-50 — CPAFTA RULES OF ORIGIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-51 — CPAFTA RULES OF ORIGIN FOR CASUAL GOODS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-52 — CPAFTA TARIFF PREFERENCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-53 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-66 — ORDER 2013-87-05-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-67 — ORDER AMENDING THE INDIAN BANDS COUNCIL ELECTIONS ORDER (HAISLA NATION)

SOR/2013-70 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PLANT PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND THE PLUM POX VIRUS COMPENSATION REGULATIONS, 2004

SOR/2013-72 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-81 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-83 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA PENSION PLAN REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-85 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-86 — ORDER AMENDING THE ONTARIO HOG CHARGES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT) ORDER

SOR/2013-89 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1431 — SCHEDULE F)

SOR/2013-90 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1663 — SCHEDULE F)

SOR/2013-93 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A LIST OF ENTITIES

SOR/2013-97 — ORDER 2012-87-06-02 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-99 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE 3 TO THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

SOR/2013-104 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE FAMILY ORDERS AND AGREEMENTS ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. Bernhardt: For the record, we have a list of 31 instruments submitted without comment.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The next item on the agenda is the draft budget, which I think everyone has in front of them.

Mr. Bélanger, are you moving the adoption of the budget?

Mr. Bélanger: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there any questions or concerns?

Mr. Albas: It seems that the budget is presented in such a way, because the majority of members are from the house, that we're paying our freight; is that correct?

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): That's right.

Mr. Albas: Happy to hear that, Mr. Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are we in agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Before we wrap up, I note that this is the last meeting for a familiar face at the committee. Jacques Rousseau is retiring this month as committee counsel. He doesn't look old enough, but Jacques put has in 32 years of service with the Library of Parliament, the past 25 of them with this committee. I have only been here for a couple of years, but I have been impressed with Jacques' diligence and thoroughness. His commitment to this committee and the principles underlying it has been unwavering. His knowledge and experience, I'm sure we all agree, will be greatly missed.

I'm told that both his legal knowledge and his knowledge of French wines will be missed by his fellow staffers.

Jacques and his wife Monique, who retired last year, are looking forward to travelling, assuming they can escape the demands of helping out with their six grandchildren under the age of 12. I hope all will join me in congratulating Jacques on a job well done.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

I gather we have another matter of business with respect to new counsel.

Mr. Bernhardt: Members will have received a memo. One of the duties that falls upon us now is to replace Mr. Rousseau. A competition was held. It is described in the memo to members, and there's a copy of the poster. The curriculum vitae of Ms. Cynthia Kirkby, the successful candidate, is attached. It has been the tradition of this committee to formally designate the successful candidate as counsel to the committee. If members are willing to do that this time, it would require a motion from the committee.

Senator Moore: So moved.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I second that motion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Moved by Senator Moore, seconded by Mr. Breitkreuz. All in agreement?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Carried.

Mr. Bélanger: I have two small items. One is technical. Is it possible when we receive the material to have it divided instead of having to put these little stickers on? I don't know if there are more than 31, but is it possible to do that so when we go through the material we don't have to flip back and forth to find the place? If it's numbered already according to the agenda, then it's easy to flip to it. That's a question. Otherwise, I'll do it myself.

Mr. Breitkreuz: There are little green pages.

Mr. Bélanger: I know, but you have to find it. Someone did a wonderful job here.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are you talking about them being tabbed?

Mr. Bélanger: Yes, if possible.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: That takes a lot of work.

Mr. Bélanger: I need to be able to do my job.

[English]

Mr. Bernhardt: That's my only concern: I'm not sure how many copies we print, but I think it would be fairly significant. They would have to come back to us from Printing. I don't think Senate Printing would do it. I don't want to sound lazy, but I know that's the first thing I do as well — I tab them.

Mr. Bélanger: At least include the tabs with it, then.

The second thing, Mr. Chair, is that I had the good fortune of being on the Treasury Board where we would get three or four of these a week, but I received them on Friday. So if you had nothing else to do on the weekend, you could actually read them.

This week I got it and I had a very full agenda, so I didn't go through most of it. Is it possible to receive these on the Friday so that those who don't have anything to do on the weekend could use the time to read them?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes. Usually we do aim for Friday, if not the Thursday before, and almost always we meet that self- imposed deadline. You are quite right: This week we did not. I understand that there were unexpected backlogs with Senate Printing, and so their turnaround time, through no fault of their own, was not what it typically is.

Our standard is to get it there late the week before the meeting. If for some reason members are not getting it repeatedly within that time, please let our office know because we will make every effort.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.

Mr. Albas: In that regard, Mr. Chair, everyone is a little different. This is my first meeting with a binder and I don't like it. Usually I just have the files here and I go through them — everyone is going to have a different approach to how they conduct it. I am leery about adding more, because if you look at it, even if Senate Printing was able to accommodate that, it might be contrary to what Mr. Bélanger is asking for with the second request, where it takes more time to get it out. I prefer these things as quickly as they come out of printing to come to us.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes.

Mr. Albas: That is not to say that there couldn't be some exploration about efficiencies or ways to make it easier for all members. I would be cautious about how the two goals might actually be counterproductive.

Mr. Bernhardt: We will see.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: I would like to say something to Mr. Rousseau, who is leaving us. I was assigned to this committee in January 2012. I am not a lawyer but a history teacher, and as everyone knows, lawyers have an easier time on this committee. We asked you for help and you came to my office and patiently explained things to me.

Your professionalism is unmatched. You will be missed. You are not someone who just did his job working with his colleagues. You went above and beyond to meet with a member and explain her job to her, what she is supposed to do. Anytime we were not sure about something, we would call you and you were always happy to help. That kind of attitude means a lot. We are here to serve and so are you. You have a done a tremendous job. Thank you very much and enjoy your retirement.

[English]

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I was going to express my thanks privately to you, Mr. Rousseau. This committee will indeed miss you. I understand you worked on the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord. You bring a corporate memory to this committee, and many of your comments reflect that.

We will truly miss you. I'm wondering how we're going to manage for the next little while. Mr. Bernhardt is going to have to take up a little bit of slack here.

Thank you very, very much.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Thank you all. I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a happy holiday season.

(The committee adjourned.)

---