---

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the 
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 4 - Evidence - February 27, 2014

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:33 a.m. for the review of statutory instruments.

Senator Bob Runciman (Joint Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Good morning. Our joint chair had a bit of a nasty fall this morning and has to have her wrist checked out as it could be broken. The good news, apparently, is that it's her left wrist. It's much more complicated if it's the right one. I didn't mean that from a political perspective.

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

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

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

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We will get under way with Item 1 on our agenda and the consideration of a draft report dealing with the National Parks Camping Regulations, National Parks General Regulations, and Regulations Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations Administered and Enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This report was discussed at our last meeting and was sent back for revision. It is now before us again.

Peter Bernhardt, General Counsel to the Committee: The most recent version has the section that discussed the St. Lawrence Saguenay Marine Protected Area Regulations removed. As well, the draft now finishes with a conclusion by way of summing up as opposed to a set of recommendations. The conclusion now refers to the possibility of considering using the miscellaneous statute law amendments process to remove any regulation-making powers to set fees that now might be considered unnecessary. That's all in accordance with the instructions we received at the last meeting.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are there comments or questions? Motion to approve the report as is. Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2009-102 — ORDER FIXING THE DATE OF THE COMING INTO FORCE OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 4A:1)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 2, under "Letters to and from Ministers," is an order fixing the date of the coming into force of certain sections of the act. This order was issued under a subsection of an act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Mr. Bernhardt: Mr. Chair, the power given under this act to bring certain provisions into force provided that the Governor-in-Council could bring them into force on a day to be fixed by the Governor-in-Council. This order was made on October 1, 2009, and provides that the coming-into-force date is the first day on which both of two international agreements are in force in Canada. The two agreements in question both provide that they come into force in Canada three months after ratification. Canada had not ratified these agreements when the order was made, so the coming-into-force date was not known at that time. Legally it was not possible to say when the sections of the act would come into force. The committee concluded that the order had not fixed the date of the coming into force of those sections. Canada ratified the two agreements on October 2, 2009, so pursuant to the terms of those agreements, they came into force three months later, on January 2, 2010.

According to the department and the minister, the Governor-in-Council did fix the date of coming into force, even though the date was not known when the order was made. They argued that the coming-into-force date was fixed because the order provides an objective mechanism for determining what that date would be: At some time after the order was adopted the date would become known.

The department also tried to make a distinction between the expressions "fixed by" and "fixed in" an order, suggesting that given that the order provides a mechanism for determining the date, the date could be said to be fixed by the order even though it was not fixed in the order. The committee has rejected this distinction as being unfounded.

I suppose what it comes down to is a question of how it can be said that providing a mechanism constitutes the fixing of a coming-into-force date when the date is not known when the order is made. How can you refer to a date that itself has not been fixed and then say that fixes some other date? In effect, the order provides that the date will be fixed when it's fixed.

The department also argues that focusing on what is meant by "fix" doesn't allow the act to be read in its entire context with the spirit of the act and the intention of Parliament in mind.

I suggest that this is somewhat ironic since the argument has been presented at great length that focuses on the minutiae of a distinction between "fixed by" and "fixed in." At the same time, the argument is made that one should not worry too much about the actual wording of the act but instead focus on the intent.

I'd also note that if it was necessary, as is argued, to coordinate the coming-into-force date of the provisions in the act with the provisions of the two agreements, then there was no need at all for Parliament to delegate the authority to fix the coming-into-force date in the first place. Parliament simply could have provided in the act that those provisions would come into force when the two agreements were in force in Canada. Parliament chose not to do that.

Also, the Governor-in-Council could have used the power in its present form to achieve the desired result. As of October 2, Canada had ratified these agreements and, therefore, it was known that three months later they would come into force. So sometime after October 2, the Governor-in-Council could have made an order saying that the provisions of the act came into force on January 2, 2010. There was a three-month period for doing that, which would have been plenty of time.

First, it's difficult to see why the approach taken was adopted; and, second, it's difficult to conclude that it was actually the approach contemplated by Parliament when it gave that power to fix the date.

Of course the consequence from the committee's point of view is that the provisions in question have never validly been brought into force.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We are at loggerheads essentially.

Are there any comments? What is the committee's wish?

Mr. Albas: When we spoke to this in 2012, I mentioned that I had actually read the government's arguments and agreed with many of them, but the choice of the committee was that we should again bring this from the officials to the minister directly. In response, the minister has given us counsel's report back, almost verbatim. Since we've given considerable time and attention to this, raised legitimate concerns and come to agree to disagree in this case, I think we should just close the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Bélanger: What has been the normal practice of the committee in previous occasions when there has been such a situation?

Mr. Bernhardt: Typically, the committee's approach, if it still feels it has concerns, would be to move toward tabling a report noting those concerns and drawing them to the attention of houses.

I should add in this case that there are implications that go beyond this particular issue in this particular case. How the committee views such specific terms as "fix" or "prescribe" by regulation, those types of narrowly conferred powers, has been one of the bedrock issues for this committee over the last 40 years. It's the type of issue that comes up quite regularly. The committee has, on multiple occasions in the past, been consistent in its approach that the power to fix something or to prescribe something is merely a power to set or determine that thing absolutely. You must be able to determine the thing fixed or prescribed from reading the regulations.

In this case, if the committee is simply to decide at the end of day that there is an agreement to disagree and it wishes not to pursue this matter, it does create a precedent going down the road on a great number of other issues the committee has. The committee will have to decide whether it wants to be consistent across the board on those issues, which frankly I would suggest means abandoning a number of positions the committee has taken over the last four and half decades, and it has been consistent in those positions.

That's not to say there is a solution to be arrived at in this case. The minister and the department have been very clear that they are not willing to budge on the issue, so the ball is in the committee's court.

Mr. Bélanger: Am I to understand that on previous occasions where this stalemate had been reached, it has been the habitual course of the committee to table a report in the house? That's what I understood. Do I understand this correctly?

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee has never tabled a report on what it sees the word "fixing" to mean. There have been dozens of this type of issue that have arisen in the past. The committee has been consistent, and at times it has been successful in getting amendments to regulations and in getting the powers in an act changed. Some of those issues are ongoing.

I don't recall things ever reaching the point we're at now where there is a complete and utter stalemate. The arguments have all been made. As you see from the correspondence, no one is even making arguments anymore. Both sides are simply referring to what they argued in the past. In a sense, there is nowhere for this file to go. I would simply urge members to be cautious in setting a precedent on walking away from this.

Mr. Bélanger: Has there ever been a case where the committee has asked representatives of the departments involved to appear before it?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, numerous times.

Mr. Bélanger: Has that been considered for this matter?

Mr. Bernhardt: No.

Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chair, I'm not supportive of the notion that we could just close the file. This committee has a mandate from both houses to pursue these matters to a good conclusion. I understand from time to time we may have difficulty coming to a solution, but I suspect that we should, instead of abandoning and closing the file, carry on. I haven't had that much experience with the committee, so I hesitate, but could we consider inviting someone to appear before us to explore this further before we come to the conclusion of cancelling or closing the file.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We could. My own suspicion is that given the position to date, it might be an exercise in futility.

I'd like to ask counsel the practical effect of tabling a report. Historically, is this simply some sort of solidification of the committee's perspective on this type of issue?

Mr. Bernhardt: I think that would basically be it. At the end of day, it might come to the same thing on this particular file. If the committee closes the file, on the other side the implication would be that the committee has folded its tent, has given up and is not going to adopt this position in the future.

Tabling the report could simply be a way of advising the two houses — and by extension advising the government — that the committee is not hopeful of getting a solution in this case but is still maintaining its position that it has the correct view. In that sense, I suppose it allows the committee the latitude to follow through with the similar position in the future should situations arise.

Mr. Bélanger: In tabling a report, has the committee ever asked the government to respond to its report?

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes, the committee has the same powers as any other committee. If the committee chooses to request a government response, it can do so.

Mr. Bélanger: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that as a committee we should consider tabling a report and asking the government for a response.

Mr. Albas: I certainly appreciate many of the suggestions brought upon this. Again, when I said "close the file," I just don't see that we're going to get a different response, whether it's a report or witnesses. Bringing officials in, they will simply remark and parrot their own line. Then we would say, "Well, let's bring the minister in," and the minister would basically mirror those same comments and we would be no farther down the road. We would have used considerable time and resources of counsel, senators and members of Parliament.

Rather than have this discussion intrude upon the upcoming presentation for Parliament today, I will make the suggestion that we pursue a report. We already have a government response — it is well-documented — and we go ahead and instruct counsel to begin a draft report. My preference is that we simply let both houses know so that the government is well informed about the committee's position on "fixed by" or "fixed in" regarding the date because counsel raises a good point; we should be letting both houses know our position.

Beyond that, I don't think we need to ask for a response. We've gone as far as we can down this path.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I think we have a consensus. If I'm reading this correctly, you are agreeing on tabling a report in both houses.

Mr. Albas: I'm agreeing to a draft report if that report concisely and succinctly points out the committee's position.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): So bring it back to the committee at our next meeting.

Mr. Albas: Yes, standard practice like we've seen with Item 1.

Mr. Bélanger: I will agree with that, and if I have other matters, I will bring them up at the next meeting.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there a consensus? Agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix B, p. 4B:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Reply Unsatisfactory," Item 3 deals with amendments that were promised 13 years ago, and they relate to drafting problems. There is one substantive issue that has yet to be dealt with.

Evelyne Borkowski-Parent, Counsel to the Committee: Eight promised amendments have yet to be made. Seven deal with drafting deficiencies, while one would repeal a provision that imposes absolute vicarious liability on the owner of a plant for contraventions for which an operator is responsible. This standard was deemed unreasonable, and the department agreed to repeal that provision back in March 2000.

The chronology of events is detailed in the note. Although agreement on some of the points dates back to early 2000, the department has always been elusive about its time frame. It is worth noting that the proposed regulations went as far as prepublication in 2004 but were never enacted.

After the February 14 meeting of last year, the department was advised that the committee wished to receive a firm timeline and that should this timeline not be met, it would consider requesting the appearance of department officials to provide justification for this failure. Subsequent explanations by the department were considered not to be the firm undertaking that the committee was seeking.

More recently, the department advised the committee in July 2013 that it would provide an update within six months. Six months later, the department is now proposing to provide an update in six months, and there is no mention of a firm time frame on this matter.

Senator Batters: Given that, we should write to the minister to alert the minister as to what is going on here. Clearly we were getting action earlier, but now the department appears to be doing a slow walk, so the minister should be made aware of this.

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

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix C, p. 4C:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item No. 4 relates to regulations that grant permission for and place conditions on the deposit of effluent from a mill into a waste water system that is regulated through the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations. The committee in the past has held the view that there is no authorization for these regulations, and what Fisheries and Environment Canada are doing means that every household in Canada violates the act when it sends waste water to a sewage treatment plant.

Mr. Bernhardt: Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where that substance may enter any such water. The question, then, is whether a mill is contravening subsection 36(3) when it deposits effluent into a municipal sewage treatment system.

The committee has concluded that 36(3) cannot be read as applying to deposits into municipal treatment systems because then, as the chair indicated, you're left with the conclusion that every time any household waste that contains a deleterious substance — and that's a substance that in any concentration can be harmful to fish — goes into a municipal treatment system, the person who made that deposit from that house is contravening the Fisheries Act. That seems a rather odd state of affairs, and the committee concluded that can't be what Parliament intended.

Back in 2009, the government announced that new regulations would be developed that would govern discharges from waste water systems. The committee was then told there would also be concurrent amendments to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations to remove the requirements relating to deposits into these sorts of treatment facilities.

When the new regulations were prepublished, there were no such concurrent amendments. So the committee requested from the department confirmation that when the new regulations were made, the requirements pertaining to effluent placed into waste water treatment facilities would be removed. In a letter dated June 10, 2010, the department gave that confirmation.

The new regulations were made on June 28, 2012; however, they did not, contrary to what the committee had been told, remove the provisions that the committee had objected to in the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations. That being the case, it was put to the department that unless it could furnish a clear, coherent argument in favour of the validity of these provisions, they should be taken out.

The committee has now before it the department's July 2013 letter that explains in detail the policy reasons for retaining the provisions in question, but as has been the case in the past, it offers little by way of a legal argument. The department talks about choosing to regulate pulp and paper mills; I point out, however, there is really not a choice here. Rather, these regulations purport to permit the doing of something that would otherwise be prohibited. The purpose of regulations is to set out conditions under which the prohibition doesn't apply. In effect, they are limited exemptions from the Fisheries Act. I think it is a bit misleading to describe this as choosing to regulate pulp and paper mills.

Similarly, I don't think there is any issue here of choosing not to regulate household waste deposits. In the absence of regulations permitting such deposits — apparently under the department's view — they are prohibited outright by the Fisheries Act. It seems that Canadians are only not being prosecuted because the department has chosen not to enforce the Fisheries Act against domestic households.

It bears emphasizing that while the department emphasizes the seriousness of the risk that pulp and paper mill effluent presents, in fact as long as you comply with the reporting requirements and have an emergency plan in place, you can deposit anything you like. So whether you comply with the regulations or not, the same material is going into the same place and the effect on the environment is identical either way.

It's a bit thin for the department to be relying on the danger these things present when, at the end of day, all they really care about it is whether you report. In fact, the department itself describes these things as "minor administrative requirements." I would point out that contravening these "minor administrative requirements" will subject you to a half-a-million-dollar fine and up to two years in prison.

I'd suggest that, at the end of the day, not only are these provisions unlawful, but it seems they are ineffective as well.

Mr. Maguire: I believe the situation is apparent, as outlined by Mr. Bernhardt, so I wonder if we should write back to the department requesting an explanation from them as to why the committee's concerns were not addressed with the promised amendments. The amendments are there, and if we could just have them write an explanation as to why they've come up with the reasoning they have — or lack of reasoning — we could perhaps get more clarification from them.

Mr. Bélanger: This question may be totally irrelevant, and I apologize ahead of time if it is. I've read a few reports and studies that there is growing evidence that discharges from households of prescribed medications are having an effect on fish habitat and on fish themselves. Suppose that someone could trace some of these medications to my home — well, they can't apply because I have septic tank, so it doesn't work. But if someone in the city were to dump prescription medicine into their toilet, could they be charged half a million dollars, or whatever the amount is, and face two years in jail if it were traced to them?

Mr. Bernhardt: On the committee's view, no, because that would be an absurd consequence. On the department's reading of the provisions, the most they have said is that it could arguably be the case. I think on the department's view, it would clear be the case. There would be no choice. If it's deleterious and it goes into a municipal system, that's a contravention of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Bélanger: That's pretty serious. It's happening, so if that is the intent of the department, it should be up front.

Mr. Bernhardt: The department's view seems to be that it's okay because they have chosen not to enforce that against households.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Since in the view of counsel, which I think is shared by the committee, this is a rather serious issue, Mr. Maguire has suggested writing back to the department. Perhaps we should direct the letter to the minister instead because of the gravity of situation, as determined by the committee.

Mr. Albas: To the point, we were promised by officials a certain course of action to make amendments. That did not happen and I would like to know why. Directing a letter to the officials is the appropriate level. I want to hear an explanation and whether it is satisfactory to the committee. Also, I would like to see them make the amendments. We always have to keep our eye on the ball, which is to see the correct result. They made a promise; and we would like to see that promise kept so that we have good government.

Senator Batters: Maybe we could have a very short timeline on it so that if the response isn't appropriate, further escalation could be taken.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Are members alright with that approach? What is a reasonable or a short timeline response? Is it 30 days?

Mr. Bernhardt: I can tell them that the committee would like a response before it leaves for the summer.

Mr. Albas: I would suggest a little more latitude than 30 days.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Forty-five days.

Mr. Albas: I would like to have a comprehensive response, not just a simple reply. If we ask for 30 days, we might not get this escalated to the level where a proper response is given. If we want them to say that we're formulating a proper response within 30 days, I'm sure we'll get that because it would meet the intention of what we've asked for but not our actual objective.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): The concern was about getting a response prior to breaking for the summer.

Mr. Albas: Then we could say that we would like it before the summer break, at least in our own mind. Again, we want to make the main thing the main thing, which is seeing an explanation and, ultimately, the amendments that we're seeking. Are we just seeking a rapid response? Again, I would prefer to keep us focused on that. Those are my two points.

Senator Moore: We might get a response at the end of our schedule and then we would be gone for the summer. I don't know the dates of our meetings in the future, but what about suggesting a response by a date in May so we could react to it before we break for the summer? Does that make sense?

Mr. Albas: Let's say 60 days.

Senator Batters: Yes, 60 days.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Vice-Chair) in the chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): We have two meetings in May: on the fifteenth and the twenty-ninth.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): We have a consensus on 60 days.

SOR/2005-346 — PROTECTION OF PASSENGER INFORMATION REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix D, 4D:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 5, under "Reply Unsatisfactory (?)", has to do with regulations governing the use of passenger information provided to Canada Border Services Agency concerning individuals travelling by air into Canada. The amendments were promised previously to clarify two drafting problems and to remove subjective language from the French version. There remain three outstanding substantive matters.

Mr. Bernhardt: That is correct. The promised amendments, the committee is now told, will proceed once a new agreement with the European Union is concluded because other amendments will likely be necessary at that time. This is not expected to be before the end of 2014.

On the three outstanding matters, the first concerned section 3, where concerns were raised regarding the vagueness of certain terms. These terms are "terrorism," "terrorism-related crimes" and "other serious crimes, including organized crime, that are transnational in nature." The committee made the suggestion that adopting or making reference to similar terms which are more clearly defined in the Criminal Code or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would be preferable.

It's not clear yet whether the agency accepts the committee's position. It has advised that the term "serious crime" is now defined in an administrative guideline. The question was then asked if the other terms were so defined or if there were plans to define them in any guidelines or in the regulations.

The reply was that the agency cannot respond any further due to cabinet confidence surrounding the negotiation of a new agreement but will provide an answer as soon as possible. Frankly, I'm not sure the reliance on cabinet confidence in connection with explaining an administrative guideline that interprets a regulation is particularly convincing. In any event, that rationale has been given.

On the second point, number 4, the concern was with provisions governing access to certain information depending on how long the information has been retained. Apparently, the intent is to provide for increasingly stringent access as time progresses, so you get an increasingly depersonalized set of data. There has been extensive correspondence back and forth as to whether the wording of the provisions actually achieves the desired effect. In the end, our conclusion is that it likely does and that probably there is nothing further to pursue on that point.

The final point, number 6 in the correspondence, concerns agreements for information sharing with other jurisdictions and other Canadian government departments. It is required under the regulations that the entity who will be given the information has to undertake to provide the same type of protection that the CBSA provides. The CBSA provides two different types of protection, depending on which statute the information is provided under: the Customs Act or, as in this case, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The agency has indicated that it shares information with the U.S. based on a memorandum of understanding that commits the U.S. to providing protection similar to that required under the Customs Act. The difficulty is that this particular information isn't collected under the Customs Act but rather under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the protection commitments given by the U.S. are in conformity with what is required by the regulations. This probably is something that we need to ask further questions on to get more details. At the same time, the question could be asked whether there are similar agreements governing the sharing of information with other federal departments, which the act refers to as well.

At this point, we suggest getting further information on the first and third of those outstanding points. On the other promised amendments, apparently the committee is being asked to wait until 2015.

Senator Batters: I agree with counsel's suggestions that for those matters referred to as point 4 in the last correspondence, there seems to be a satisfactory explanation. However, we need clarification on the other points, so we should write back continuing to seek resolution on those other points.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there agreement with that approach?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2012-161 — BY-LAW AMENDING CERTAIN BY-LAWS MADE UNDER THE CANADIAN PAYMENTS ACT

(For text of documents, see Appendix E, 4E:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Under "Part Action Promised," Item 6 is an amendment correcting the wording of five provisions in the bylaws, but four new points were raised. The department has promised to correct a discrepancy between the English and French versions and has addressed another point by promising to respect subsection 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act. I believe there are two other points as yet unaddressed.

[Translation]

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: Four new points were raised concerning by-law No. 3. As the note mentions, the department provided two answers to counsels' letter. Since the first attempt was rather poorly received, they seem to have tried to rectify things with a second attempt.

As for point one, counsel wanted to know why the regulation had not been transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council within the seven days following the making of the regulation, in compliance with subsection 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act.

It seems that an administrative error was the cause of that, and people intend to comply in future with legislative requirements that have been in place since 1972. An amendment has in fact been promised to correct point No. 2. The replies provided to point 3 and 4 are not particularly satisfying. In point 3 of their letter counsel wondered about the scope of the verb "attempt" in paragraph 43.1(2)(d) of the by-law.

That provision states that the group clearer shall, immediately on ceasing to act for an entity, "attempt" to give notice of its decision to the direct clearers. This is vague language and the department was unable to provide a specific description of what a sufficient attempt to advise would be.

The department considers that since it is impossible to capture all of the conceivable circumstances, it is not appropriate to be precise. A regulatory text has never been intended to list all of the possible circumstances to which it could apply. However, it is inherent in the nature of regulations to set out a rule of conduct, and that objective cannot be attained if the text is deliberately vague.

As for point 4, counsel attempted to obtain clarifications of the term "regulator" which is neither defined in the by-law itself nor in the Canadian Payments Act. That clarification is important since clearers that are in default are prohibited from making entries into the automated clearing settlement system unless under the control of a regulator.

The question is this: who may exercise that control? According to the department, it is not practical to define those terms, because the list of regulators may change from time to time and an organization may or may not be, depending on the context, a regulator, and it would be appropriate that that expression be interpreted within its ordinary meaning based on the context in which it appears.

That is a very poor reference to legislative interpretation principles, in order to justify something which might otherwise inconvenience the department. It is true that one should tend toward the ordinary meaning of words when interpreting a legal text. However, as the author Sullivan explains in his work Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, in certain cases, the ordinary meaning is ambiguous in that two distinct meanings may be attributed to a term which can both make sense in the immediate context of the text.

More often still, the ordinary meaning of a term is ambiguous because it is vague, or its scope is not clear. Section 59 of the by-law is one of those cases where the ordinary meaning is ambiguous, and once again, that would seem to be the case because the department does not seem to want to go to the trouble of setting out the necessary characteristics to define the term "regulator."

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): I'm assuming you disagree with section 59, the last reference where they talked about the list of regulators changing from time to time. Counsel takes the view that that doesn't limit their ability to define regulators. Is that what you're suggesting?

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: I'm suggesting the fact that things change occasionally is a tenuous explanation for keeping what is otherwise an ambiguous reference in the regulations. At the very least there should be some kind of characteristics established so one would know what a regulator is.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Comments?

Senator Moore: What do you recommend, counsel?

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: To pursue the last two points on the ambiguity.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: As for « tenter de », is it the same thing in English: « attempt to»? This is not simply a matter of interpretation, as it is a translation, but the term is vague both in French and in English, is it not?

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: Yes.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): It may not be serious enough, but it strikes me with 59 that it might be worthwhile to have an actual conversation between counsel and the individual who is taking this position to get a better understanding of both perspectives. Writing back and forth can be helpful, but when you have this different perspective on the definition, it might be worthwhile to have an actual conversation.

Is there any difficulty with that? Is the committee comfortable with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2008-104 — REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)

(For text of documents, see Appendix F, 4F:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Item 7 under "Part Action Taken" concerns a file that was last before the committee in 2009 and amendments were promised for three outstanding points. One of them was made and an amendment clarifying the wording of an authorization form set out in the regulations has been promised, along with a related amendment to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, but there has been no indication of when that will be done.

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: That sums up the file pretty well. All I have to add is the second point deals with the subdelegation of a power to set standards that are required by the act to be prescribed by regulations. The department explained in the letter dated back in August that it had had been delayed in making the promised amendments after the industry expressed concerns during the consultation period. It nevertheless intends to go to prepublication before the end of the first quarter of 2014. As things seem to be making headway, counsel can continue to monitor the progress on this file.

Mr. Maguire: Obviously from the comments that have been made, we should just write back and ask when the remaining amendments will be made and get some finalization to it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Is there agreement with that approach?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-143 — REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING THE PERIODS WITHIN WHICH ELIGIBLE AUTHORS, ELIGIBLE PERFORMERS AND ELIGIBLE MAKERS NOT REPRESENTED BY COLLECTIVE SOCIETIES CAN CLAIM PRIVATE COPYING REMUNERATION

(For text of documents, see Appendix G, 4G:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): Next is Item 8 under "Reply Satisfactory." It was indicated to us that this doesn't indicate the date which it was made, so it was impossible to determine whether if it was transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council, as required, within seven days.

[Translation]

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: After verification, it seems that the regulation was in fact transmitted in the seven days following its making, in compliance with the Statutory Instruments Act. Since the legal requirements were respected, the file could be closed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): It was just an administrative error. Okay.

SOR/2012-255 — OATH OR SOLEMN AFFIRMATION OF OFFICE RULES (IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD)

(For text of documents, see Appendix H, 4H:1.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Runciman): With regard to Item 9 under "Reply Satisfactory (?)", the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that the rules be tabled in Parliament within 15 days of approval by the Governor-in-Council. In this case the board did not table the rules at all until prompted by this committee. Again, we have an apology and a commitment that it won't happen again. It was their oversight. I think we can accept that. Close the file?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/95-105 — ON BOARD TRAINS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS, AMENDMENT

(For text of documents, see Appendix I, 4I:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Moving on to Item 10 under "Progress," these matters were first brought to the department's attention only 19 years ago and the amendments have been promised repeatedly. The amendments would clarify provisions, remove unnecessary, confusing or misleading wording, resolve a discrepancy between French and English versions, and delete a definition that had an unintended effect.

The last correspondence in this package was from July 2013 and said the amendments would be prepublished in the Canada Gazette in the fall of 2013. Could counsel please confirm what has happened here?

[Translation]

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: All I have to add on that is that I am very pained to report to you this morning that after verification, the amendments still have not been pre-published. So the pre-publication planned for last fall did not take place.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): What is the committee's wish in regards to this item?

Mr. Albas: It's good for us to write and ask for a progress report.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): All agreed?

Mr. Bélanger: Have there been communications with the minister on this at any time?

Mr. Bernhardt: I don't believe so.

Mr. Bélanger: After 20 years, you think it would be the thing to do.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Only 19.

Mr. Bélanger: It's just a thought before it hits 20. Let's make sure the minister is aware of this.

Mr. Bernhardt: One thing that might bear noting is that back in 2005, the committee did ask for the appearance of departmental officials. The department then gave an assurance that things would go for legal drafting within a month. The committee, in light of that assurance, decided it did not need to hear from witnesses at that point, and here we are nine years later.

Mr. Bélanger: In reaction to Mr. Albas's comment, the minister may know, but she has had a fairly full plate, through no fault of her own, over the last year or so. The fact of bringing it to the attention of the minister by letter would, I suspect, cause some of the officials who have been derelict to act a little more efficiently. It's not the minister that I'm targeting here; it is the officials, to make sure they get to the respective commitments made a number of years ago.

Mr. Albas: I totally understand where my colleague is coming from, but let's put this in perspective. First of all, you are absolutely right: The minister is probably paying close attention to many demands currently facing her to make sure we have a safe system. Yet, in reading this, it states:

These amendments would clarify provisions, remove unnecessary, confusing or misleading wording, resolve a minor discrepancy between English and French versions, and delete a definition that had the unintended effect of narrowing the scope of the Minister's discretion to designate regional safety officers.

I would want the minister focused on the safety item first and not on an issue such as this.

In order for something to get prepublication in Part I of the Canada Gazette, it has to go through Treasury Board and the minister's office. There is a lot of process involved with that.

Therefore, I say again that we write back to the officials and ask for a clear timeline. If we get an unsatisfactory response, we can always elevate it to the minister. But when we go to a minister, let's go with something substantive, with something that we can put the force of this committee behind. This constant elevation does no one any good.

Let's get a timeline. We're halfway there. Getting the department to agree to it and the fact that they were getting ready for prepublication shows that they are working. It is not uncommon for these kinds of thing to happen.

I would ask we write and ask for a progress report, and if we get an unsatisfactory response, then I'm all for further elevation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Do we have agreement?

Mr. Bélanger: I have a question regarding the process of the committee. When you say "write to the officials," who do you write to?

Mr. Bernhardt: There is one person in each department who has been designated as the committee's contact point. That is in accordance with instructions through the Clerk of the Privy Council years ago. They are referred to as a designated instruments officer. That person in this case is Mr. Choi, the Assistant Deputy Minister at Labour Canada. That is who the letter would go to.

Mr. Bélanger: Having been in the position of being a minister, you don't want your department to be seen to be ragging the puck for 19 years, and you want to know about these things. You don't do it yourself, but you get your deputy to make sure it happens. Has the committee ever written to a deputy of a department?

Mr. Bernhardt: The committee can write to whomever it chooses.

Mr. Bélanger: After 19 years, I think escalation is warranted here. I respect the fact that the minister has other important responsibilities and more pressing ones. I respect that entirely. But if it's not to the minister, the letter would not get transferred to the DM by saying, "See to it; get it fixed." If we are not prepared to do that, would we be prepared to escalate within the department so that someone over there rattles the cage a bit and gets this thing done after 19 years?

Senator Moore: Are you suggesting writing to the deputy minister?

Mr. Bélanger: I'm asking if that would be appropriate.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Are there other comments?

Mr. Albas: Our counsel just answered that the appropriate person designated to us is the official we've been writing to. Again, we have been trying to work in good faith. I imagine that if they are not working in good faith, we will receive an unsatisfactory response and then we will raise it.

If you look at the actual process of an amendment to a regulation, particularly for Part I of the Canada Gazette, the deputy minister has to sign off before it goes to a minister.

So to Mr. Belanger's point, I totally understand he wants to see action on the file, but there is a certain way of doing things.

Everyone wants a piece of the minister's time, and you should know better than anyone, but I would like to add that it's only when we receive a completely unsatisfactory response.

[Translation]

Ms. Ayala: It is a matter of effectiveness. We agree that 19 years is a long period of time. Even we, as members, sometimes receive certain things in our offices, our assistants are aware of them, but time passes. One day, we attend an event and find out that a citizen is angry because we did not reply to something which was important and serious.

That is the case here. Consequently, I agree with what Mr. Bélanger said. We have to inform either the minister or the deputy minister. From that point on, whoever is responsible will be able to deal with things in his office.

[English]

Mr. Maguire: I agree that 19 years is quite a long time.

I caught in the comments of Mr. Bernhardt earlier, and I see it in the letter of July 9, that the regulations will be prepublished in the Canada Gazette Part I in the fall of 2013. That is the letter from Mr. Choi, and it is indicated here that he is the assistant deputy minister.

Mr. Bernhardt: Yes.

Mr. Maguire: Would we write him back and say, "These weren't done by December 31. For our next meeting, what would the appropriate time frame be? You are still working on this. Will this be published by the end of March or April? It was not done in December." Can we kind of "around the corner" scold them for not getting it done and get some kind of commitment?

Mr. Bernhardt: If that's the committee's wish.

Mr. Bélanger: I might go with that, Mr. Maguire, but I want to make sure I did not misinterpret what you're saying. Mr. Albas has concluded that you say we don't write to deputies, and yet in response to my question, you said we do from time to time. How does that happen? What triggers us going to the deputy?

Mr. Bernhardt: That is entirely a matter for the committee to decide. I was referring to the usual practice, which is that we have a contact person in each department. There are occasions when, for whatever reason, the committee decides to depart from that.

Mr. Bélanger: Can you give us an example or two of when it has happened? I am trying to learn here.

Mr. Bernhardt: I can research that. Off the top of my head, I know there have been instances, but they are few and far between.

Mr. Bélanger: Maybe next time. I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I am okay with Mr. Maguire's suggestion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Do we all agree with what Mr. Maguire has suggested?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SI/2012-37 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN PASSPORT ORDER

(For text of documents, see Appendix J. 4J:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): The next three items on our agenda fall under the heading "Progress (?)". Item 11 is an Order Amending the Canadian Passport Order. The committee previously raised the issue of the absence of a limit on the period during which Passport Canada can refuse to provide passport services. Passport Canada is studying the matter but gives no indication of when it might be.

Mr. Bernhardt: That's correct, Mr. Chair. The current policy in the department is to impose a maximum period of five years. You can withhold passport service for the same reasons that you can revoke a passport. The department agreed with the committee to put the maximum period in this order. However, the department has explained that because a passport with a validity period of 10 years will be available, they are undertaking a review to decide whether that would have an effect on what the maximum period should be for withholding service. Since last July, this has been a matter for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which gave the committee the last letter. Apparently, they will do an amendment to put a period in. What the committee doesn't have at this point is a time frame.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): What is the committee's wish?

Mr. Clarke: We should request a progress report from the department to see what the status is.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Are all agreed with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2002-301 — INTERPROVINCIAL MOVEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix K, 4K:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Item 12 on our agenda has been before the committee since 2005. The amendments to the French version have been promised since 2005, and the date for publication has been a moving target in correspondence from the department, with the latest letter suggesting it will be done toward the end of 2014.

[Translation]

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: One of the basic rules when drafting regulations is that the regulation has to use the terms as they are defined in the enabling statute. There is a presumption behind that that if the legislator uses different terms, he is referring to different concepts. The use of uniform language consequently avoids the multiplication of definitions, and confusion throughout the various regulations.

In this case, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act defines "transport within Canada" as meaning interprovincial transport. This is the expression which should have been used in the regulation. Despite the department's commitment to proceeding with the required amendment, the timeline was pushed back three times since 2012. Pre-publication is now supposed to take place around the end of 2014.

In all deference to the department, this type of correction could easily be a part of a miscellaneous regulatory amendment. Perhaps we could make that suggestion to them.

Mr. Bélanger: What do you mean by a miscellaneous regulatory amendment?

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: A miscellaneous regulatory amendment is an accelerated procedure to correct errors that are considered minor, i.e. discrepancies between the French and the English, or typographical errors. This allows one to obviate the pre-publication period, and make regulations with less formality.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you. I accept that.

[English]

Senator Moore: That's fine.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Are there any other comments as to where we go from here? Good.

SOR/2005-178 — CIGARETTE IGNITION PROPENSITY REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix L, 4L:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Moving on to Item 13, Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations, this has been before the committee since 2007 and the Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations need to be revoked and re-enacted under the authority of the new Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Like the previous file, the forecasted time frame is a moving target.

Ms. Borkowski-Parent: This is a case where the subject matter of the regulations falls outside the scope of the enabling act. The regulations, which purport to prescribe standards for the ignition of certain tobacco products, were made under the Tobacco Act, which has for its purpose the reduction of tobacco use, public education and disease prevention.

Because the prevention of fire hazards falls outside the framework of the Tobacco Act, the regulations are, for all intents and purposes, ultra vires. The recent Canada Consumer Product Safety Act deals specifically with safety issues. The regulations, therefore, need to be re-enacted under the CCPSA. The projected time frame for prepublication was postponed from spring 2012 until January 2013 and now winter 2014.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Are there further comments? There's a suggestion to wait until spring to see if there will be an update.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

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

(For text of documents, see Appendix M, 4M:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Item 14 falls under the heading "Action Promised (?)". There are discrepancies between the List of Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs in Foods incorporated by reference into the new Marketing Authorization and the existing table of maximum residue limits in the Food and Drugs Regulations, both of which have the force of law. The plan is to repeal the existing table in the Food and Drugs Regulations, but it has not been done. This creates confusion for persons attempting to comply with the law. Are there comments?

Mr. Bernhardt: I can provide a little background for members. Under the Food and Drugs Act, the sale of adulterated foods is prohibited. The regulations create exemptions in respect of certain foods that contain residues of certain veterinary drugs as long as the amount does not exceed the maximum limit. There is a large table in the regulations that sets out the allowable limits for a whole variety of drugs relating to a whole variety of foods. That table is still in the regulations and still has the force of law.

Under recent amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, the Minister of Health can issue a marketing authorization. This can incorporate by reference a document from any source. The minister issued a marketing authorization for maximum residue limits for veterinary drugs in foods. It incorporates the departmental list of maximum residue limits. You have the table and the list in the regulations, which is still law; and you have the table and the list in the department's list, which is now law because of the authorization order. Both are valid law, but there are discrepancies and contradictions between the two.

The department has indicated that it plans to repeal the provisions and the table from the regulations but doesn't seem in any hurry to do so. One might wonder why it was not done at the same time as the marketing authorization was made. It's a little curious to leave the regulations as they are and legally in force while putting something in place that apparently is intended to replace them.

The department originally indicated that it planned to prepublish amendments to resolve the situation last fall, but that has not happened yet. That's where matters stand.

There are two ways to look at it. First, if action is imminent, it may be considered satisfactory. Second, if it will be awhile, a suggestion could be made that in the interim the two tables should be brought into conformity so there isn't a situation where a person is charged and goes to court for contravening one and ends up pointing to the other under which it is permissible.

Mr. Albas: This is an example. We have Table 3, which has been promised to be repealed, and we have a table of limits that clearly has authorization and the force of law behind it. This may lead to circumstances that we do not wish to see happen. I think it's in the public interest for us to write to the minister to raise the point that this has happened and to seek repeal of Table 3 as soon as possible.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): That seems to be a reasonable course of action. Are there other comments? Is everybody agreed with that?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

SOR/2013-79 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FERTILIZERS REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix N, 4N:1.)

SOR/2013-173 — REGULATIONS REPEALING THE ONTARIO GREENHOUSE VEGETABLE APPOINTED SHIPPERS' PROCEDURES (INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT) REGULATIONS

(For text of documents, see Appendix O, 4O:1.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): Next are Items 15 and 16 under "Action Taken." Action has been taken, so I don't think we need to discuss these.

C.R.C. C. 1392 — ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PENSION CONTINUATION REGULATIONS

SI/88-237 — PROCLAMATION GIVING NOTICE OF COMING INTO FORCE CANADA-FRANCE PROTOCOL AMENDING THE CONVENTION RESPECTING TAXES ON INCOME

SI/2013-70 — ORDER AMENDING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2013-71 — ORDER AMENDING THE PRIVACY ACT HEADS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DESIGNATION ORDER

SI/2013-72 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2013-73 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN MINISTERS

SI/2013-74 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE LYNNE YELICH AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE LYNNE YELICH TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SI/2013-75 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE GARY GOODYEAR AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE GARRY GOODYEAR TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY

SI/2013-76 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN PARADIS AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN PARADIS TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SI/2013-77 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MAXIME BERNIER AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE MAXIME BERNIER TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

SI/2013-78 — ORDER TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONOURABLE TIM UPPAL AND ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE TIM UPPAL TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SI/2013-79 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE JASON KENNEY TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SI/2013-80 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE ROB MOORE TO ASSIST THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY ACT

SI/2013-81 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE JOHN DUNCAN TO ASSIST THE PRIME MINISTER

SI/2013-82 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE KEVIN SORENSON TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

SI/2013-83 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE PIERRE POILIEVRE TO ASSIST THE PRIME MINISTER

SI/2013-84 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE CANDICE BERGEN TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

SI/2013-85 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE GREG RICKFORD TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY

SI/2013-86 — ORDER ASSIGNING THE HONOURABLE MICHELLE REMPEL TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

SI/2013-87 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PORTION OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION KNOWN AS THE OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF CANADA AND ORDERING THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA TO PRESIDE OVER THE OFFICE

SI/2013-88 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I.1 TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SI/2013-89 — ORDER AMENDING THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT DEPUTY HEADS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA ORDER

SI/2013-90 — ORDER TRANSFERRING FROM THE MINISTER OF HEALTH TO THE MINISTER OF THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PORTION OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION KNOWN AS THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ORDERING THE MINISTER OF THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO PRESIDE OVER THE AGENCY

SI/2013-91 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I.1 TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SI/2013-92 — ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE I.1 TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

SOR/91-105 — CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS, 1990

SOR/91-604 — CROWN LIABILITY AND PROCEEDINGS (PROVINCIAL COURT) REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-95 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FIREARMS LICENCES REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-109 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-134 — ORDER 2013-87-03-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-140 — PERMITS AUTHORIZING AN ACTIVITY AFFECTING LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-145 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA GRAIN REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-146 — ORDER AMENDING THE OFF GRADES OF GRAIN AND GRADES OF SCREENING ORDER

SOR/2013-147 — ORDER 2013-87-06-01 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST

SOR/2013-148 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN CHICKEN MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS

SOR/2013-149 — REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): As well, we have the list of 36 statutory instruments without comment.

Are there other comments?

Mr. Albas: Thank you, Mr. Chair; I appreciate your standing up.

First, I want on the record that for our joint chair, who isn't here today, I hope it's nothing serious, that she gets the help she needs right away and that she returns to work as soon as possible. I'm sure we all wish that.

Second, today we agreed to table a report in both houses. Could the joint chairs please let members of the committee know when they plan to table the report as I would greatly appreciate it? I would like to be in the house to hear our member table that report.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): That sounds reasonable.

Mr. Bélanger: I thought we would see the report before it's tabled.

Senator Moore: It's the draft report from today.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): I think that's right.

Mr. Albas: I was referring to Item No. 1. We have the draft report and we agreed on it today.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Breitkreuz): You're right.

Seeing no other business before us, this meeting is adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)

---