THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, TRADE AND COMMERCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 1, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization; and, in camera, to study Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. My name is Pamela Wallin and I am the chair of this committee.
I would like to introduce the members of the committee, beginning with the deputy chair, Senator C. Deacon. We also have with us Senator Gignac, Senator Loffreda, Senator Marshall, Senator Ringuette, Senator Smith and Senator Woo. We are waiting for Senator Moncion and Senator Yussuff, but we’ve got to begin now.
Today we have the pleasure of welcoming our colleagues, Senator Black, Senator Manning and Senator Omidvar. We have invited these senators in their capacity as chairs of other committees to share the findings of their respective committees on the parts of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
As you know, this committee looked at parts of the bill and the bill was sent out to a variety of committees. We have three of the chairs reporting tonight, from the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, with Parts 4, 5, and 6; the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with Part 7; and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology with Part 8.
We will ask each of our senator colleagues to make a brief statement.
Hon. Robert Black: Honourable colleagues, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to report on the results of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry’s pre-study of Parts 4, 5 and 6 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
As we detailed in the report, the committee supports the proposed amendments in Part 4 and Part 5 of Bill S-6.
With regard to Part 6, I would like to take this opportunity to state on the record that while our pre-study was under way, the committee received a letter from the Minister of Health on May 10, 2022, indicating the Government of Canada’s intention to support an amendment to remove Part 6 from Bill S-6 when the Senate undertakes its clause-by-clause consideration as a result of Health Canada’s current consultations regarding the modernization of the Pest Control Products Act, also known as the PCPA.
Therefore, given the current consultations, the committee does not at this time support Part 6’s proposed amendments to the PCPA. In the committee’s opinion, because Health Canada’s efforts to modernize the PCPA will supersede certain issues addressed in Part 6 of Bill S-6, it does in fact seem premature to approve Part 6.
I would also like to share that, in a more general matter, the committee believes that the Government of Canada should ensure that future consultation processes for regulatory modernization bills and initiatives meet several key criteria. In particular, the processes should be transparent, interactive and inclusive of all relevant stakeholders, including both those who are well-established in and those who are new entrants to a particular sector. In the committee’s view, such an approach would enhance the coordination between and among federal departments and those stakeholders.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank all members of our committee, Agriculture and Forestry Committee, for their thoughtfulness and time they devoted to consideration of Parts 4, 5 and 6 of Bill S-6. I would also like to publicly thank our witnesses and those who submitted briefs to the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to share with you what we heard and found out.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Black.
Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable colleagues, I appear before you this evening in my role as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for inviting me to appear before you this evening. I don’t often get the opportunity to sit on this side of the committee table, and I’m virtual this evening.
On April 28 of this year, the Fisheries Committee was authorized to examine the subject matter of the elements related to fisheries and oceans contained in Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Part 7 of Bill S-6 proposes to amend parts of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and parts of the Fisheries Act. On May 3 of this year, the Fisheries Committee heard witnesses on the subject matter of Part 7. Witnesses were representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
The changes proposed to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act relate to excluding certain licences and permits issued pursuant to regulations from being subject to the Statutory Instruments Act, clause 153, and the introduction of a new offence under the act, clauses 154 and 155.
With respect to the Fisheries Act, the changes proposed in Bill S-6 mostly pertain to alternative measures agreements, or AMAs, which were introduced when the act was last amended in 2019. AMAs are agreements that those allegedly found to be in contravention of the act can enter into with an Attorney General, either federal or provincial, to avoid judicial proceedings.
As it stands, such agreements must be entered into within 180 days of the Attorney General providing the initial disclosure of the Crown’s evidence, among other conditions. Bill S-6 proposes to remove this time limit under clause 156.
Bill S-6 also attempts to clarify the discretionary powers of fisheries officers, fishery guardians and peace officers, clause 157. In doing so, a new term is introduced into the Fisheries Act. The new term is “restorative justice principles,” and:
Restorative justice refers to Can approach to justice that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.”
The committee heard from a witness that, “. . . All restorative justice measures are examples of alternative measures, but not all alternative measures are examples of restorative justice.”
Overall, members of the Fisheries Committee heard about how the changes proposed in Part 7 specifically, and in Bill S-6 more broadly, were not contentious and that their purpose was regulatory modernization.
As a result, on May 10, I had the pleasure of tabling the Fisheries Committee’s second report of the Forty-fourth Parliament, which stated that the committee supported the amendments proposed to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Fisheries Act in Part 7 of Bill S-6. I want to thank my Senate colleagues that serve on the Fisheries Committee with me for their work on this piece of legislation. I also want to thank honourable colleagues for your time today and remain at your disposal should you have any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning. For those who may be watching us online, this process is that this committee — the Banking Committee — was given the task of being the host committee studying Bill S-6. We had some provisions that we looked at, but as I said earlier, other committees also were parcelled out parts of the bill to study. They’re bringing their reports back to us, so we will have a few questions for them and then we will have the report back to the Senate Chamber.
For our third witness today, we have Senator Omidvar.
Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you so much for welcoming me to this committee. It’s my first experience at Banking Committee, and maybe it won’t be my last.
The Social Affairs Committees was referred Part 8 of Bill S-6 for study. Part 8 consists of two clauses. In the main, these clauses will enable the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to share customer client information across its own department and different business lines of the department and with other departments in the government, including with other provinces and territories. We heard from officials of the department and we also heard from two lawyers in the bar.
Officials from the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship presented their rationale for these amendments, which are grounded in modernization and efficiency. There are so many customer streams in the department that every time a customer moves from one lane to another, they have to fill out the same information time and again. This is costly, inefficient and creates customer frustration.
The proposal is that once the information is inherent with the department, it is easily shared across customer lines. However, we did hear from the two members of the bar that the reach of the language in the clause was broad and they were concerned about the sharing of information, not just within the department but outside the department, and with provinces and territories. Based on their observation, the information shared should be limited to status and identity and not to other factors and features that are in the clause.
We have passed their recommendations on to you and have appended the proposed language of their amendments. We are not making amendments. This is a pre-study. It is really up to this committee to do that.
In light of this testimony, we did go back to IRCC to get their response to the concerns that were raised, primarily around privacy. We did not receive their response in time to include it in the report, but we have appended it for you as background information. In essence, they dismissed the concerns of the lawyers and assured us that, in fact, the amendments proposed were neither advisable nor necessary.
In addition, we had requested the Privacy Commissioner to appear. He was not able to appear, but he did submit a letter to us outlining that whilst, in general, the amendments were within the parameters of privacy legislation, he did have a concern about sharing information without written information-sharing agreements with provinces, et cetera. We have also included that observation in our report to you.
Finally, we have made an observation that even though these amendments will create efficiency and will modernize the system, these amendments deal with one small part of the system. Our expectation is that the overwhelming delay in processing and the many backlogs — close to 2 million people in various backlogs — will not necessarily be addressed just by these changes. It is a whole-of-system approach that, at some point, I think would be advisable. I leave it there and look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for that. We’ll delve into that one a bit, because we are in the same bind of dealing with amendments.
Was there a commitment from anyone in your responses? The concerns you had were “dismissed” — that is the word you used. Was there any other commitment from government officials that they had heard you and would respond in any way?
Senator Omidvar: Their response is worded that the amendments were “neither necessary nor advisable.” Their response further clarifies that the proposed section of the clause is already limited to the content of status of documents issued by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
The Chair: Were you reassured by that?
Senator Omidvar: Again, this is a pre-study. We didn’t have time to go back and forth under the pressure of time. We were assured that the department has legislative and policy obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the policy act and other governmental policies and directives on privacy. It’s a broad comfort statement, I would suggest.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s helpful. We will begin our questioning.
Senator C. Deacon: I’ll carry on, Senator Omidvar, with the same line of questioning, specifically to ask this: Were the witnesses immigration lawyers or privacy lawyers?
Senator Omidvar: Immigration lawyers.
Senator C. Deacon: For me, that’s important context because of the complexities of the field of privacy and data rights. That’s important context.
I’m going to jump up a level, if I could. The regulatory modernization act, as well articulated by Senator Woo, is to remove irritants and, we assume, to speed up efficiencies. It was troubling to hear the reporting that you received. That is, perhaps the internal efficiencies won’t make a difference with this massive backlog and challenges that exist.
Could you speak to that a bit? That’s certainly what I hope would be happening, namely, to make it easier for people. It sounds like a better customer experience is intended, that they don’t have to re-enter and re-enter data, sometimes having to do it in a second or third language. What are your thoughts, in terms of why this might not be actually making the process better for the real customers of that process, which are those who are applying to come to Canada?
Senator Omidvar: Senator Deacon, I’m here in front of you representing the report. I’m not here to answer your questions as a senator on immigration. I’m happy to do that at a separate study that you may have. I will simply restate again what the committee heard from the officials.
From both legal experts and the department, the committee heard that while the proposed amendments may increase efficiency internally, they will not significantly improve timelines, backlogs and service standards.
Senator C. Deacon: They didn’t explain why?
Senator Omidvar: The department did explain why. They explained to us that the system is complex, it has many moving parts and this is one intervention, at one level. While it may grease some wheels, it’s not an overhaul of the machinery. I’m going beyond my ambit to make that last comment.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Omidvar. I appreciate it very much.
The Chair: I think we’ll have to deal with how we’re going to deal with proposed section 6. Do you have action on that, Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Thank you, chair, and thank you, chairs of the Agriculture Committee and Social Affairs, as well as our colleague Senator Manning at Fisheries Committee. Thank you to your committees for your work on this bill.
On Part 6 of Bill S-6, I want to thank especially the Agriculture Committee for elucidating the difficulty with the Pest Control Products Act and the complication around ongoing negotiations. I think they’ve given us a wise piece of advice and I believe the minister has agreed with it.
I believe it is the intention of the minister, through me, to remove that section when we get to it at clause by clause next week.
The Chair: That’s helpful, so we know that when we go to our in camera session.
Senator Ringuette: I have a follow-up question for Senator Omidvar regarding the sharing of information with other customers within, and the fact that most provinces have immigration agreements with that department that would include the sharing of information and the privacy of information.
What was the situation in regards to the provinces? You said that the Privacy Commissioner said there should be an information agreement with the provinces.
For instance, I know that in the province of New Brunswick, the province does share information with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, because it has received from that department and the Government of Canada the ability to approve new arrivals to the province of New Brunswick. I believe Quebec has been doing that for more than a decade, so sharing of information must be an inclusive part of those agreements.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Ringuette, for that question.
The Privacy Commissioner, in his letter to us, which has been forwarded to you, spoke generally about the requirement for written information-sharing agreements. He did not touch on the issue of provinces. He did suggest that before any information is shared within the federal government or outside, there must be a written information-sharing agreement.
In response to his letter, the department wrote back to us and indicated that the department could — and probably will — include in any regulations regarding information-sharing to a federal partner that the information-sharing would be pursuant to an agreement or MOU.
Senator Ringuette: I’m assuming that the federal government, through its agreement with the different provinces, would have some privacy of information and the ability to share that information between the federal and the provincial entity. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would assume that this new regulation would ensure the flow, from what you said, from one stream to another federal stream, or perhaps from a federal stream to a provincial one, or a provincial one to a federal one so that there is a flow.
The Chair: We’re not asking you to testify on behalf of provinces or governments.
Senator Omidvar: The Privacy Commissioner’s letter should be taken into advisement by your committee. That’s why we sent it to you.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Senator Black, and thank you to all the senators for being here this evening.
In your report, Senator Black — you did state it, but I’m just going to clarify for the question’s sake — your committee states that it believes the Government of Canada should ensure that future consultation processes for regulatory modernization bills and initiatives meet several key criteria. In particular, the processes should be transparent, interactive and inclusive of all relevant stakeholders.
I want you to elaborate on how you arrived at that statement. Are you making this observation based on the testimony of witnesses — and if so, how many — who felt that they were not adequately consulted? I’d like to hear some elaboration on your part on how this was arrived at.
Senator Black: Thank you, Senator Loffreda.
Yes, we did hear from government officials as well as representatives from six business trade associations and one civil society organization. I’ll point out that of two of the six business trade associations, one was a relatively new organization, and one had a number of years behind it. The committee heard clearly that not everyone was consulted fully — with government officials — over the course of time, so that’s where our general concern or general observation came from.
Am I clear?
Senator Loffreda: Yes, I think you’re clear. So there was a consensus that many of the stakeholders didn’t feel they were properly consulted. That is a strong statement, I guess, as long as that was clear with all the witnesses you did meet.
Senator Black: I wouldn’t say “many.” I would say “some.” I’m being very specific, “some.”
We didn’t hear overall, but we did hear some say that they wished they had been and would look forward to greater consultation going forward, yes.
Senator Loffreda: And some of those witnesses were important witnesses that your committee had?
Senator Black: Absolutely. I will just share with you that we heard from the Canadian National Millers Association, the Canadian Seed Growers Association, CropLife Canada, Fertilizer Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, as well as Seeds Canada. We heard from a broad cross-section of organizations. As I say, some were relatively new in their existence, and some were older.
Senator Loffreda: So you’re very comfortable with that statement?
Senator Black: Yes.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: My first question is for Senator Omidvar.
I went through your report, because this is the biggest one, and I broke it down into sections. Thinking back and reflecting on what you said, are you able to tell us whether there’s support for that part of the bill?
When I read it, I get the impression that you are not really supportive, or the committee is not really supportive of that part of the bill. I’m wondering if I am coming to the right conclusion, or you are satisfied with it but have these reservations.
Senator Omidvar: I would say the latter. We have reservations that we passed that we heard from witnesses.
I should build off the last question and talk about stakeholder consultations that the department did. We did discuss those and, in this context, the department thought of stakeholders primarily as other departments and other provinces. They did not actually consult with the bar, and if they had done so, these concerns possibly could have been raised and addressed. But they’re being raised in a pre-study, which is the function of a pre-study.
Senator Marshall: To be specific on one area where you outlined three bullets where you’re saying one witness recommended specific amendments to Bill S-6, and then you outline them. Then you say your committee suggests that these proposed changes be reflected upon.
Did the committee come to a conclusion as to whether they supported those proposed changes, or did the committee not go that far? They’re just saying that this is what this person recommended, and somebody should give some thought to it? Did the committee itself agree with those three recommendations?
Senator Omidvar: We did not agree to the wording of any amendment, because that was not our job. We are passing on what we heard in a pretty compressed pre-study. I want to underline that to you in the hopes that you may want to put it in your report that there needs to be more work done in this area.
We leave it at that.
Senator Marshall: There needs to be further study?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Senator Marshall: That helps. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We appreciate that, because we can’t conclude based on things we did not look at, so we’re very dependent on your assessment.
That’s very helpful. Thank you so much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much to our colleagues who are bringing forward the reflections of their committee and what they heard in their committees. I want to build off the last two things we heard and ask each of you, if you could, just to briefly summarize.
It sounds like there is a need for — and Senator Black gave us some very clear conditions — and such a benefit that could come from broader, more robust consultation in the identification of areas where there could be improvement or streamlining of the regulatory burden or modernizing regulations, elimination of irritants. It sounds like that is a consistent theme across the board.
I would love to hear if I have reflected that fairly, Senators Black or Omidvar, and whether or not Senator Manning heard similar comments in his committee meeting.
Senator Black: I can start. Thank you very much for that question, Senator Deacon.
Certainly, some of our witnesses — again, I use “some” and not “many,” being specific — pointed out that the proposed amendments to the bill right now did not result from meaningful consultations or engagement with all stakeholders. That was a clear message that we heard. I know it was a message that was heard and that in further work being done, there should be that meaningful consultation, period.
The Chair: I just want to add that I think that the committee also received post facto letters because the time was so short.
Senator Black: Yes. I will mention that I did have them sent to you. They were with respect to transportation and interswitching, the rail. They had an agricultural component but they were transportation. We received them after the report was done. We proposed that they send them to you and also that they could send them on to the House as well.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification because it’s part of that.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that question. Whilst we didn’t include any comments on stakeholder consultations in the report, we did hear from IRCC that they did consult with their stakeholders. In this case, their stakeholders were other federal departments and provinces and territories. I am mindful of the fact that I am only talking about the report. Recalling that discussion, I will conclude that members of the committee believe that the Canadian Bar Association and members of the bar are important stakeholders and they were not consulted.
Senator C. Deacon: In other words, to strengthen the outcome.
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Senator Omidvar.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for the question. As I stated in my short report, the changes as proposed to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act are not that contentious in most corners. We were told that consultations were held, necessarily. I think that timing might have been a concern. Again, I do not think that there is anything there that was really upsetting and caused much concern.
As a matter of fact, in some cases, what is being proposed are improvements over what is in place at the present time in relation to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Senator C. Deacon: Senator Manning, thank you for that.
I would expect in the area that your committee focuses, there are needs of modernization of regulations, broad strokes. Was there any discussion or did any of your witnesses mention what might be needed in future in terms of consultation?
Senator Manning: The original Fisheries Act was in place and had not changed for almost 150 years. It was really only the past number of years that any changes have come forward and are now being brought and implemented.
Again, because of climate change, the blue economy, the different types of fisheries that are ongoing in the world and, in a lot of cases, because of the dire strain on some of those fisheries, I think we will see further amendments. We will see further suggestions being brought forward to address some of the concerns that I just touched on.
The fisheries have been changing. It has changed drastically in my lifetime in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt that we are dealing with things that are not necessarily directly in the water but the effect was in the water. I think that you will see some changes and amendments coming forward to address those concerns in the future.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, Madam Chair, I would like to go back to the privacy issue with Senator Omidvar and it is a simple question. It is something that you said about the people or the members of your committee who were concerned about the information-sharing between provinces and territories more than within the different federal government’s departments.
Senator Omidvar: I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. That is not what I said. I said that the department’s response — I’m trying to remember what I said.
The Chair: You mean in reference to their letter?
Senator Omidvar: The department’s response did not reference information-sharing agreements with provinces. I agree with Senator Ringuette that these are most likely in place. But the Privacy Commissioner has made a blanket statement for your consideration and our consideration that sharing of information should meet the Privacy Commissioner’s standards, and that observation is in the report.
Senator Moncion: That is where you say that while the proposed amendments might increase efficiency internally, these changes will not improve processing times, reduce the backlog or affect service standards? Okay, thank you, I just wanted clarification on this.
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
The Chair: The Privacy Commissioner did not appear. They just wrote a letter. Thank you for that.
Senator Woo: I have specific questions for the chair of the Social Affairs Committee and some general questions for our two other colleagues, time permitting.
Let me start with the SOCI report. Senator Omidvar, the centrepiece of the recommendations appear to be that there should be more explicit reference to particular sections of the Privacy Act in Bill S-6. Was the committee made aware that all legislation is subject to the Privacy Act; and, if so, why then is this recommendation being made? Was consideration given to the possibility that explicit reference to the Privacy Act, when it is a default requirement of our legislation, might have a counterproductive effect of implying that other legislation that does not return to privacy is no longer subject to it?
I’m trying to get the rationale for the committee for putting this in.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Woo, we received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. He did not appear in front of us, and we have included his concerns in our report.
Senator Woo: With due respect, the Privacy Commissioner did not make any of those recommendations to include specific references to the Privacy Act here. He would know very well that the Privacy Act applies —
The Chair: But if he was not available for testimony, then that is the point.
Senator Woo: No, my point is —
Senator Omidvar: Senator Woo, senators on the Social Affairs Committee also know that the Privacy Act applies to all legislation. We do know that.
Senator Woo: What is the logic of the committee then recommending that there be specific reference to the Privacy Act?
Senator Omidvar: We are not — I do not believe that we are recommending.
Senator Woo: Yes, it’s —
Senator Omidvar: We are being very cautious in our language to you. We are saying that future consideration of Part 8 of Bill S-6 include how information-sharing agreements meet the standards of the legislation.
Senator Woo: I refer to pages —
The Chair: Okay, I think that that is clear. What are you trying to say, Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: I am trying to address the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2, where very specific references is to recommendations from a witness that sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act be included. Chair, is that a problem?
The Chair: I think that you have been clear, but go ahead if there is more to say.
Senator Woo: I am trying to understand —
Senator Omidvar: Senator Woo, with due respect, we are in no way supporting the recommendations of the witness. We are saying one witness recommended specific amendments, and we thought it was fair to pass those on to you.
Senator Woo: Okay. But the committee, as you say, is well aware that the Privacy Act does cover all of the legislation, and this is thrown in as a courtesy to the witness who made this recommendation.
Senator Omidvar: It is up to you to decide, colleagues, whether or not this is —
The Chair: Let’s not use the pejorative language.
Senator Omidvar: It is up to you to decide.
Senator Woo: Let me move on to your reference to the department having responded on the issue of the coverage of information to be shared. You, in the second response, clarified that the department — in fact, section 5.5 of the act specifically says that the information disclosures would be limited to identity, status and information released by the minister.
That is not reflected in the report. Fair enough, because the immigration letter arrived later, but it was part of the act, of course. It is in the original text.
Would the committee have been satisfied if it had recognized that section 5.5 in fact covers exactly those things that the witnesses have asked for: identity, status and only information provided by the minister to the applicant? Would that have satisfied the committee and changed the nature of the report? Because that is what the report is calling for, what the witnesses are calling for — just those three items.
Senator Omidvar: I’m not sure that I get the drift of your question, Senator Woo.
The Chair: Senator Woo, I think that we are going to have to focus on what the report has stated. We’re not relitigating the government’s position here.
Senator Woo: I am trying to understand the concern in the report around the type of information that Bill S-6 requires.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Woo, you know far better than me how a committee functions. We heard two witnesses from the bar. The report is very moderate in reflecting their fairly serious concerns. We are moderate in reflecting that, but that is what we heard. I do not think it is not our business to examine the veracity of their claims. This is what we heard; this is what they said. These are members of the bar and the chair or vice-chair of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association.
The Chair: I think that these are issues that all of the committees faced because time was so limited and restricted. We were hearing witnesses for a very short time.
Could we move on, Senator Woo? Do you have other questions for other chairs? I don’t know how much further you can try to change —
Senator Woo: I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I am just trying to clarify that it would seem that there has been clarification on the comments provided in the witness testimony.
To our two other chairs, I want to pick up on the questions from Senator Deacon and others on the process, efficacy and value — and if you feel that there is efficacy and value — in an annual regulatory modernization cleanup effort that has the adequate amount of consultation. Would this be an appropriate forum for stakeholders in the agricultural and fisheries sectors to provide input on the sorts of things that need to be cleaned up regularly in regulations that have to do with your two respective sectors?
Senator Black: Thank you for your question, Senator Woo. I believe we heard at an annual cleanup, as you call it, would be welcomed. But we also heard that it is far bigger than an annual cleanup. I believe we heard that there was need for a more fulsome modernization as well.
The annual cleanup is great. We heard from our Treasury Board witness that that was the intent, but it had not been started yet. Here we are, June of this year, and if this is going to happen next spring, we should have started already. We heard that there was that intent. We also heard, if I am not mistaken, that there was need for a more fulsome modernization strategy as well.
Senator Manning: Senator Woo, I echo the comments of Senator Black. I think the industry would welcome an annual regulatory modernization cleanup. The fishery is an ever-changing industry. There are safety concerns, regulation around quotas, vessel size, rules, regulations, timing. As I said, it is an ever-changing industry.
We heard and believe that an annual cleanup would be welcome news if — and I stress the word “if” — proper consultation is held with the stakeholders that make a living in this industry. In doing so, they would have to be given ample time.
That is a concern that I think has been expressed throughout the process; we do things, but we have to do them in a hurry all the time. Sometimes we don’t get it right, and then we have to go back and do it again.
I’m a strong believer in the fact that I don’t have time to do it the second time, so let’s do it right the first time.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Manning. We have all been hearing that. Our committee heard that as well.
Senator Marshall: Senator Black, I do not know if you will be able to answer this, but I find it peculiar that Part 6 is included in Bill S-6. It must have gone through some sort of a process within the government, but now the government has decided to remove it.
Did they act too fast? It just seems odd that there is a section in a bill that’s gone through a certain process. It gets as far as pre-study, and, surprise, the government says they do not need to do that one now because they are going to remove it.
Senator Black: We were very surprised as well, end of story. It caught us off guard as well.
Senator Marshall: It caught you off guard.
Senator Black: Yes. I will leave it at that.
Senator Marshall: It gives you the impression that the government is not quite coordinated internally.
Senator Black: We had some of those discussions with our witnesses as well, and we did not get answers that answered the questions we asked, period.
Senator Marshall: When they commented on the consultation process, did you get the sense that it was actually the consultation process they were focused on, or that they were influenced by the problem with the Part 6, or they didn’t like the outcome of the consultation process? Was that a factor?
Senator Black: I do not think that I can answer that. I cannot say for sure.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for the committee chairs who feel that they have something to add to this question.
During your committee deliberations, did the stakeholders provide any feedback on other regulations that their industry feels needs to be amended beyond what is found in Bill S-6 currently and not already discussed or disclosed?
I know that this could be the subject of a further study, but sometimes what is not in the regulation is a reflection of the quality of what is actually in there.
I am open to hearing any relevant commentary or elaboration on that question that any of our committee chairs would like to add.
The Chair: You wonder if witnesses actually said, “We’re talking about these issues, but there are more things that should have been on the table”?
Senator Loffreda: Yes, there are things that should have been there. For example, when we are talking about copyright, registration, not registering or registering, have there been any contentious issues that were brought forward that should have been considered here?
Senator Omidvar: Senator Loffreda, we met for two hours on these changes. There was so much to get into just on the two clauses that there was no time to explore any other ancillary demands.
Senator Loffreda: One of my other questions, Senator Omidvar, was if you had enough time, and I think you have answered that one.
The Chair: I think so, too.
Senator Black: I do not think I have anything to add other than we heard, in broad strokes, that other areas should be looked at over time.
The Chair: Not just the cleanup process, as you said earlier, but a real review.
Senator Black: Absolutely.
Senator Manning: I have nothing to add. I say the same as Senators Black and Omidvar.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Black and, I believe, Senator Deacon were with me at your committee meeting when I asked the officials about the process. The process was an open book where all and any Canadian businesses or stakeholders could make suggestions. Each department takes those suggestions, analyzes and then makes consultations. I cannot remember the gentleman’s name, but I specifically asked if a standing Senate committee could be used as a consultation mechanism with stakeholders in regard to the different regulation changes that were being proposed in that open-text situation. He said, “Yes, absolutely.”
I was personally pleased because it is not often that officials are so open to sharing this process with senators.
Would you say that this is early in the yearly event? I would say that, yes, maybe some departments need to have a broader consultation, including with our standing Senate committees. Like any other process, there is always room for improvement, but this is a promising start.
Senator Black: Yes, we did hear that, and it was good to hear. I would suggest that the proof is in the pudding. Will we be used? I don’t know, and that is where the proof is in the pudding. RWe did hear it, but I will point out that, for many of our government department witnesses, we didn’t get the answers. We didn’t get answers, period, to many of our questions.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. I know that it is very tough slogging because we’re in the same difficult position, and we really appreciate the insight you have been able to give us about what went on in your respective committees. We are hearing this shared message about really not much time and very short shrift on some of this.
Senator Black, Senator Manning and Senator Omidvar, we really appreciate your time tonight.
Senator Smith: In this issue of communication and lack thereof and in the definition of consultation versus communication, on the food chain of power, is there someone who could actually look at this and say, “Hey, this is not working properly. These changes have to be made.”? Is it Treasury Board that does that? Who does that, or who could do that?
The Chair: I think we should put this discussion into our committee here as we go in camera because it is now our job to figure out how to make some of these recommendations and forward this advice to the powers that be. Treasury Board is certainly part of the overall project, but we’re hearing that, inside each department, processes have to be improved as well.
Senator Smith: We would love to have that feedback.
The Chair: You are troopers. We will see you tomorrow at work. Thank you so much.
(The committee continued in camera.)