Hon. Rosemary Moodie: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, disaggregated data is well understood to be key in crafting better social policies that are equitable and address various intersectionalities. Robust and modernized data collection was a significant line item in Budget 2021 at $250 million over five years, and it was part of the recommendations of the 2021 report from the National Advisory Council on Poverty.

Senator Gold, could you provide this chamber with an update on Statistics Canada’s progress on this issue and their goals for the coming fiscal year, please?

Senator Francis: Thank you for your answer, Senator Gold. I’m concerned by the impact the ongoing ban will have on the Island industry and economy. Could you please let us know when seed producers will receive financial compensation from the federal government and when other supports will be made available to those who wish to transition to other crops?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, a recent PBO study looked at the effect of federal carbon pricing on the economy. It found that most households in the four provinces that are subject to the federal price on carbon are worse off financially.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Yves Giroux, noted:

Under the Government’s HEHE plan, most households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing. That is, the costs they face—including the federal carbon levy, higher GST and lower incomes—will exceed the Climate Action Incentive rebate they receive.

The PBO study is based on the current situation, and we know that it doesn’t take into consideration any new green technologies that may result in cost savings, nor does it take into consideration the overall costs of climate inaction.

Senator Gold, what is the government doing to address the concerns of Canadians about carbon pricing and to, at the same time, help educate the public on the real cost of climate inaction?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question. It’s an important one.

First of all, the government thanks the Parliamentary Budget Officer for his work. That work actually confirms that the price on pollution has a progressive impact and gives 8 out of 10 families more back through climate action incentive rebates than they, in fact, pay.

As colleagues know, pricing carbon pollution is a central part of Canada’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and drive clean innovation. It is widely regarded around the world as the most efficient policy to reduce emissions.

With regard to the second part of your question, colleague, the government has introduced a number of measures to educate Canadians on the importance of climate action, including the Climate Action and Awareness Fund, which will invest $206 million in projects that build youth awareness, engagement and action; support community-based climate action; advance climate science and technology and support academia. I also note that the government has introduced measures to support Canadians in reducing their carbon use, including the Climate Action Incentive Fund, which helps fund energy-efficient retrofits and other projects to improve energy efficiency and productivity, reducing energy use and carbon pollution while saving money.

Senator Gold: Thank you, again, for the important question. The 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is an ambitious and, the government believes, achievable plan for Canada to reach its climate targets. The plan has been in development for months, and it includes the input of over 30,000 Canadians and, as many colleagues know, a sector-by-sector pathway.

Additionally, I note that it does provide for consultations with respect to driving down carbon pollution from the oil and gas sector. Finally, it further outlines next steps to continue delivering on those priorities for Canadians.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold.

Last November, following the detection of potato wart in two fields, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency banned the export of all potatoes outside of P.E.I., including to the United States and the rest of Canada. This decision shocked and devastated the industry, which is a major employer and economic contributor in our province.

Last Friday, the ban was finally lifted on the export of P.E.I. table, or eating, potatoes, but not seed or processing potatoes, which is not expected to resume until at least 2023. That could mean two more seasons of losses.

Senator Gold, what steps, if any, are the federal government taking to move up the timeline on lifting the ban on seed potatoes?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, as I said in my statement, we are two weeks away from the anniversary of Canada’s worst mass shooting, when 22 innocent victims in Portapique lost their lives.

In February, I asked you about the families of the 22 victims, who had complained about the lack of information and especially the lack of cooperation over the past two years with respect to the public inquiry into the tragedy. Although the victims’ families were satisfied with the commissioner’s decision to call the killer’s widow and the police officers who participated in the operation to testify, these families had to fight for that information, which is totally unacceptable. I would like to remind you, Senator Gold, that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, a supra-constitutional statute, states in section 7 that:

Every victim has the right, on request, to information about

Have you obtained information about why the victims’ families were not part of the public inquiry even though they should have been?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for reminding us of this recent tragedy. I will have to work on getting you that information because I don’t have it right now. I will follow up.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: In my statement a few moments ago, I touched on another very important issue, namely the disorganization at the RCMP. As we know, the RCMP is responsible for policing large parts of Canada’s territory and provides community-based services that are equivalent to municipal police services.

We also know that the amount of time it took to locate the killer was partly due to this disorganization and a lack of communication. The killer was intercepted by a stroke of luck. If not for that, there could have been even more victims.

Can you tell us what the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Honourable Marco Mendicino, plans to do to strengthen the RCMP and make sure it has the response capabilities it needs in order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again?

Senator Poirier: Leader, the Government of Canada has made goals or promised deadlines to be met in any number of areas. For example, by 2035, the Trudeau government aims for a net-zero emissions electricity grid. It also promised to set a target for gender equality in sports at every level by 2035.

Yet the recent Order Paper answer from the Trudeau government refuses to say whether it would set a date or goal for ending homelessness amongst veterans; it simply referred to a program that has yet to be designed.

As I mentioned earlier, leader, why won’t your government set a goal for eliminating homelessness amongst our Canadian veterans?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, the NDP-Liberal government claims that even with the steady increase in the carbon tax from $50 a tonne now to $170 a tonne in 2030, Canadian households will be better off because of the rebates they will receive.

However, according to a recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Manitobans — even with the rebate — will be $299 in the red this fiscal year, $402 in the red the year after that, and by 2030-31 they will suffer an annual net loss of $1,145. The results are similar in other provinces, and worse in Alberta.

Leader, who got it right, the NDP-Liberal government or the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I would like to stand on a point of order.

On Thursday of last week, when I wasn’t in the chamber, the leader of the government asked Senator Housakos a question after Senator Housakos’s very good speech given in the Senate regarding hybrid sittings — and, indeed, good arguments were made by many of my colleagues — that we needed to get back to this place and do our job here the way we were intended to.

Of course, this moment is the first opportunity I have had to stand on this. I want to say at the outset, Your Honour and colleagues, that I’m not seeking any recourse; I simply want to put some things on the record as a point of order. I do that now. There is no recourse required from you, Your Honour, on this issue, as far as I’m concerned.

Senator Gold asked Senator Housakos a question, and this is from Hansard:

Our Rules, which are well established, do give both the government and the opposition a veto over whether a committee request to sit, notwithstanding that the Senate may be adjourned for over a week — they can approve or disapprove. Honourable senators will know that those requests have often been disapproved.

Senator Gold goes on to say:

I’m asking whether you would agree, in light of the legitimate concerns you’ve raised about the importance of the work we do, especially in committees, and representing the opposition as the leader — at least today — that those requests should in fact be acceded to such that committees could do the work with greater time and resources.

The words “. . . that those requests should in fact be acceded to . . .” imply that you just simply approve whatever request is made.

I wasn’t here to defend myself, Your Honour. When comments like “have often been disapproved” are made, I would take that not as an accusation, but at least as an assertion that I had rather flippantly not given approval to committees that wanted to sit on Mondays after the Senate had been away for more than a week.

I had a clerk of committees do some research for me and help me with this, and I would like to put on the record that there were a total of 13 requests made for 24 different committee meetings. I approved 18 of the 24 meetings. I’m not sure what “often been disapproved” means.

For the week of January 31 to February 4 of this year, there were five committees that had originally requested to meet. I withdrew approval for three of them because they were meeting on future business only. As I explained to the clerk, I did so in light of decisions made to extend the adjournment of the Senate to limit the number of staff on site because of the convoy in downtown Ottawa. I said that, because of what we were told were dangerous circumstances for people to come to work, the Conservatives would be withdrawing approval for committee meetings that did not have any business before them. For committees with no business before them, we withdrew approval for them to sit.

The two committees that did meet with our approval had witnesses invited, so it was important that they meet.

For the week of March 21, 2021 — a year ago — I, again, did not give approval for a meeting of the Legal Committee during a break week, which was a meeting on Bill C-3, because not all the steering members had been consulted.

Your Honour and colleagues, we have seen motions brought forward here that would give committees the opportunity to meet without consultation between the government leader and the Leader of the Opposition, and that is when we would have a runaway train.

There are reasons we have had rules in this place for 150 years — rules that have actually accommodated us quite well. There is a specific reason why it has been decided that the government leader and the Leader of the Opposition decide whether committees should meet at certain times. Generally, they gather all the facts and do not just simply, 30 seconds, or a minute and 30 seconds after a request is made — as we have seen on some occasions — reply with an email that reads, “I agree.” Rather, we think this through and see whether there may be problems.

Without question, colleagues, it is a problem with translation and setting up hybrid meetings. It is easy to have meetings when we are all here and meet in person. Yes, translation is needed, but we don’t need all the resources required for hybrid meetings. There are a limited number of committees that can meet at one time. That has to be considered.

The government casting aspersions on the opposition does not help with camaraderie. It does not help us to get along, negotiate and facilitate each other’s requests, and work in the spirit of unity. Too often, I believe, one side is being accused of not listening. Senator Housakos, who was in no position to know what meetings I had approved, had not approved and why they weren’t approved, gets asked in my absence, and a suggestion is made in my absence that these requests have often been disapproved.

I take issue with that. I take issue with the fact that the government is trying to put the opposition into a defence position. That’s not the way this chamber has worked in the past. The government needs to defend what they are doing.

Even though we are called the opposition, I believe that I and leaders of the opposition before me have tried to work in a collaborative way, and we would like to continue to do that. I quite frankly think that Senator Gold has the same desires and has done the same things. But when a senator is not here to defend himself or herself, to have a question like that put forward and to have a comment like that made when it is an absolutely untrue statement, I find troubling.

But I have put it on the record, Your Honour, and I would just as soon simply let it stand for the record, that we move on and that we, including myself, all try to do better in the future. Thank you.

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, on the same point of order, if I could briefly respond for the record and for context, because context is always important.

The context last week — and I was sitting here listening to the discussion — was one in which Senator Housakos spent a considerable period of time, Your Honour, insinuating that hybrid sittings and those who are supportive of them were in some way deleterious to the effective operations of the Senate.

I think a number of us sat here listening to that discourse and were rather offended by it. I know I certainly was. Some of the senator’s remarks signified to the public that senators were in some way shirking their responsibilities to Canadians. It’s not a stretch to say that. I’m not reaching to say that. I’m not digging deep to say that. That was the nature of the comments made — that somehow those who support hybrid sittings were not living up to their responsibilities.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This chamber and people on all sides of it, in the context of hybrid sittings, have given of their best, have processed government bills, processed government business and processed private members’ business; have made important statements; have been productive in every sense of the word; have lived up to their constitutional responsibilities. Suggestions to the contrary were, frankly, deeply offensive to many of us in this room. Actually, that’s one of the reasons that I’m grateful for the opportunity to comment on that right now.

Senator Housakos was certainly not speaking in the spirit of unity and commonality that Senator Plett exhorts us to do today. If that had been the case, perhaps those remarks would have been more evenly balanced. It was negative, it was critical and it was far from collaborative.

Your Honour, thank you for the time to say this. There was very little mention made of the health concerns associated with the reasons for hybrid sittings, for the devastation across this country and to people across this country, the devastation to relatives of some people in this chamber, the devastation to one particular person in this chamber who is no longer with us. That’s the backdrop to hybrid sittings.

Senator Dean: I stand by my word. Please do not interrupt me, Senator Plett.

Senator Colin Deacon pointed out to us that there were other reasons to confront the possibilities and virtues of hybrid sittings, which related to the benefits of the use of digitization and digital technology for productivity that could contribute to the savings of costs as we do our work in this place, that could contribute to those who worry about their health as they travel from the coasts and to those who may, over time, be concerned about the environmental impact of long-term travel.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo moved second reading of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to be the sponsor of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, and to speak to it at second reading.

Bill S-6 has been introduced in this chamber so that we can thoroughly study it on behalf of Canadians. I’d like to thank all of you in advance for your wise counsel on this bill, and I look forward to our collective deliberations.

[Translation]

Businesses are the backbone of Canada’s economic success. They create the goods, services and wealth that have made our country so prosperous. As we emerge from the pandemic and look ahead to the economic recovery, Bill S-6 will help Canadian businesses by ensuring that the regulatory system evolves to keep pace with changing technologies and that it reflects today’s realities.

[English]

This bill will make regulatory processes simpler and easier to navigate, moving paper-based or in-person processes online and ensuring Canadian regulations keep pace with international trends.

Specifically, Bill S-6 proposes to modify 29 acts through 46 amendments and it applies to 12 departments and agencies.

While the immediate impact of each proposal is relatively modest, all the proposals aim to eliminate legislative irritants and to reduce the overall administrative burden that have become barriers to innovation and economic growth. What’s more, all of the proposals are cost-neutral and the associated risks are low to non-existent.

Taken together, these amendments represent meaningful change to the federal regulatory system and the need for continued commitment to its modernization.

[Translation]

Before I get into the details, allow me to provide some information on how this bill came about.

[English]

To begin with, the process to modernize regulations is part of the mandate of the President of the Treasury Board of Canada. In her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, Minister Fortier is asked to continue regulatory reform efforts in collaboration with her cabinet colleagues. This includes improving transparency, reducing administrative burden and harmonizing regulations that maintain high safety standards and improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses.

The bill is meant to be a recurring legislative mechanism that allows the federal government to address overly complicated, inconsistent or outdated requirements and to keep the regulatory system relevant and up-to-date. It is designed to address legislative challenges raised by businesses and all Canadians through consultations and targeted regulatory reviews. Business stakeholders, including the Economic Strategy Tables and the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, have emphasized the importance of regularized mechanisms in order to review and update Canada’s regulatory system.

In addition, the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness, made up of business, academic and consumer stakeholders, has recommended that there be continued efforts to reduce the administrative burden of regulations and to ensure that they are “future proofed,” which means keeping pace with changing technologies and business realities.

By amending laws that are too inflexible, too specific or simply outdated, this bill is an important reminder of the need for ongoing regulatory review and legislation that stands the test of time.

The bill does just that, and it also helps address irritants in regulatory processes, ensuring that our regulatory system evolves with the times.

This bill is a key part of the government’s plan to improve the regulatory system. Initiatives supporting regulatory reform were announced in four successive budgets beginning in 2017. In the 2018 Fall Economic Statement, the government announced that starting in 2019, it would introduce annual legislation to ensure that the regulatory system evolves with changing technologies and reflects the current realities, challenges and opportunities faced by business.

Accordingly, the Budget Implementation Act 2019, No. 1 included a regulatory modernization component that modified 12 pieces of legislation. That bill included measures to digitize paper-based processes; enable innovation through regulatory sandboxes that allow exceptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products; and to make rule changes in consideration of zero-emission vehicles.

The current Bill S-6 would have arrived in Parliament sooner but for the COVID-19 pandemic. It was, however, foreshadowed in Budget 2021 in which the government committed to table in Parliament the second Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill, which is Bill S-6.

Let me now turn to some of the key amendments proposed in this bill.

There is a change, for example, to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act that would allow the CFIA to deliver services and for businesses to interact with the agency using electronic means rather than having to rely solely on paper-based transactions. This will reduce the administrative burden for businesses and allow them greater flexibility in their interactions with government.

In addition, there are amendments to the Canada Transportation Act that would allow for new mechanisms to integrate changes more quickly to international safety standards. This would ensure that our transportation sectors are meeting the most up-to-date safety standards, keeping pace with changes in technology and innovation. The Standards Council of Canada, on whose board I served for a number of years, examined 34 Transport Canada regulations in 2021 and found that 41% of the standards referenced in those regulations are outdated.

There are also changes to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enable information-sharing to help administer any federal or provincial law for permanent and temporary residents. This would support collaboration between federal departments, provinces and territories and enable faster processing of applications to address labour market needs. Did you know that 50% of permanent residency applicants already have temporary residency applications approved and, hence, have already provided much of the information needed for their PR applications? This is not trivial, because some forms require the applicants to address more than 100 questions.

There are other amendments, for example, to the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act to simply change the term “annual return” so that it doesn’t create confusion to stakeholders.

Colleagues, if you are thinking what could be so confusing about the term “annual return” and asking yourself if it isn’t just the tax return that companies have to file every year, the answer is that it is not. If you figured that they were one and the same, you would be among the thousands of Canadian business owners who have been confused by this nomenclature.

In fact, the annual return that is referenced in the Corporations Act and related acts is not the same as the tax return that is administered by the CRA. Rather, it is an annual submission to provide updated information about the entity, shareholders, directors and officers. Not filing this information for a number of years can result in a company being dissolved, as well as expenses to revive the company.

A simple, possibly innocent, error due to confusing nomenclature can result in significant consequences, and the proposed amendment in Bill S-6 seeks to eliminate the likelihood of such errors.

Adding clarity through these amendments would reduce the risk of active corporations becoming dissolved because they did not file.

I would also mention the amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to allow the use of different sampling methods to verify electric and gas meter measurements. Electric and gas meters are used by utility companies in residential and commercial properties to track energy usage for billing purposes. Allowing greater flexibility in the sampling and testing approach would help ensure that Measurement Canada — the agency responsible for regulation — only samples what is required to verify accurate readings, saving time and money.

There are also amendments to the Fisheries Act that would clarify that fisheries officers have the authority to use alternative measures in response to minor violations, which is an authority that was unclear in the existing legislation. This change could not only reduce the number of lengthy and costly court processes but also ensure that small violations don’t result in criminal records and the stigma and barriers that can come with it.

The use of such alternative measures has been supported by the fishing community and by Indigenous groups. In fact, all of the proposed amendments come from either the advice of multi-stakeholder groups that are involved in ongoing consultations or targeted regulatory reviews, or from the recommendations of our very own Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I have been a member of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee almost the entire time that I have served in the Senate, and I’m very pleased for the recognition that this bill gives to the important work of that committee.

Perhaps next time there is committee selection, there will be a rush of applicants to join the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee.

Since the amendments are both disparate and quite technical, I will not be able to address all of them in this speech nor likely even to address all of the questions you may have on very specific items in the bill, which is why I think the best place to study the specific amendments is in committee. I would encourage us to send the bill to the relevant committees as soon as possible so that they have sufficient time to do their work.

Honourable colleagues, these are just a few of the amendments included in the bill, but I think they give you a sense of the breadth and the potential impact of having it passed.

Looking ahead, the Treasury Board Secretariat is already considering proposals for the third Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill. A key theme of this next round of modernization will be how it might contribute to the response to COVID-19 and recovery efforts to that end. Businesses and all Canadian stakeholders will have the opportunity to share their views on improving the regulatory system. A consultation will take place this fall to collect ideas for potential amendments to be included in subsequent regulatory modernization bills.

Let me add that because this is meant to be an annual exercise with an Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill introduced each year, passing this Bill S-6 as a stand-alone bill will help establish a precedent for future bills and, I hope, establish the commitment that Parliament has to ongoing improvements to our regulatory system.

Colleagues, in addition to the Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill exercise, there are other ongoing initiatives to modernize our regulatory system. For example, there is a process of targeted regulatory reviews to reduce barriers to economic growth and competitiveness, and to advance novel regulatory approaches to support innovation.

Federal regulators are also implementing regulatory road maps for two rounds of reviews. Some of the areas of focus for these regulatory reviews have included agri-food and aquaculture, health and biosciences, transportation, clean technology and international standards to name just a few. Indeed, some of the changes proposed in Bill S-6 stem from the regulatory reviews that I just described.

There is also within government something called the Centre for Regulatory Innovation that promotes a whole-of-government approach to regulatory experimentation to support innovation and competitiveness, and help regulators and the regulatory system keep pace with technological advances.

Finally, Canada is actively engaging with partners in the United States and the EU, as well as with provinces and territories, to reduce unnecessary regulatory differences and eliminate duplicative requirements among jurisdictions.

Honourable senators, this bill is about modernizing Canada’s federal regulatory system. It seeks to make the system more efficient and less burdensome, while maintaining protections for consumers, health, safety and the environment. I look forward to working with all of you on this bill, and I hope we can soon send it to the committees for their detailed scrutiny of the proposed amendments.

Thank you.

Senator Quinn: Honourable senators, I rise this afternoon on behalf of our honourable colleague Senator Robert Black who can’t be with us this afternoon. The question is as follows:

For the past few years, there has been extensive work highlighting the importance of regulatory modernization to Canadian agriculture and, by extension, the Canadian economy. Starting with the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, the Barton Report, and followed by the Agri-Food Economic Strategy Table, this work culminated in the Agri‑food and Aquaculture Roadmap and regulatory review that involved significant consultations with agri-food stakeholders.

How does this bill, which touches on many critical pieces of legislation for Canadian farmers, relate to that road map and reflect the voices of Canadian farmers that informed that work?

Senator Woo: I thank you, and I thank Senator Black for being the originator of the question.

By my count, 22, possibly 23, of the amendments out of the 46 in the bill, apply to the agriculture and agri-food sector. Many of those amendments derive precisely from the regulatory efforts and consultations that you reference, both the agriculture and aquaculture regulatory review process, as well as the so-called Barton Report.

To give you some examples, number 17 on the Feeds Act and number 25 on the Seeds Act — feeds and seeds — will bring about changes in the legislation to allow for mutual recognition of feed and seed safety guidelines between Canada and a partner country — in what they call equivalents or mutual recognition agreements — in order for processes in seeds and fertilizers and other materials to be shared between the two countries without repeating the testing and approval processes. That is believed to be helpful to our industries and to augment and enhance trade between Canada and trading partners.

Another example would be amendment 30, which has to do with the control of breakouts of animal disease. The current legislation is a bit unclear in terms of what a control area is and whether a place that has an incidence of this disease would be considered to be subject to the regulations, even if it is outside the control area. The amendment makes clear that a so-called place that is designated would be subject to the same restrictions, even if it were not part of the so-called control area.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Woo, I actually had the privilege of being the joint chair of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee in 2014 and 2015, prior to that election. I was a member for a couple of years before that, from the time that I came to the Senate. I certainly know and understand that it is a very important committee where this type of technical work gets done.

Stemming from my work for the Government of Saskatchewan, I saw it as a real benefit to have these types of regulatory statutes, which are brought forward quite often — in Saskatchewan, generally they try to do this every year or two — where they tidy up these regulations and statutes. When I was joint chair, I suggested strongly that this be done by the federal government to ensure these types of corrections to statutes can be made in a timely way.

However, I don’t think that has happened. Since the Trudeau government has been in power, I’m not sure how many times these types of regulatory statutes have been tidied up. Could you please answer that question?

Just yesterday the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee had its first meeting of this parliamentary session, already several months into it. Has that also been a problem, that we haven’t had many Scrutiny of Regulations meetings? We used to have them every two weeks when I was joint chair.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Batters, for the question. Let me start with the question about the committee’s constitution.

We did, in fact, meet yesterday for the first time in this Parliament. I’m honoured to have been elected joint chair, together with MP Blake Richards from the House of Commons. We will meet every two weeks now until we rise for the summer and we hope to get as much work done as possible.

Some of the work of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee can translate into immediate change on the part of the government if it doesn’t require a change in legislation. You will know, since you were a former joint chair, that a number of the requests the committee has made to departments pointing out errors in their drafting of regulations has resulted in their making the changes. Sometimes it’s like pulling teeth, you will remember. That kind of progress can be made without, in fact, changing the acts.

Of course, if errors spotted by the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee require changes in legislation, then we are into this kind of process here. Indeed, Bill S-6 contains at least a dozen measures that derive directly from the direct or indirect advice of the committee. I would be happy to provide more information on what specific advice was given. Those of us who have served on this committee should take pride that our observations in the committee — with the blessing of this chamber and the House — will result in changes to legislation.

However, Bill S-6 is much more than just cleaning up of regulations and laws based on the comments of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee. The majority of changes in Bill S-6 derive from either the regulatory review process that is held with business and consumer stakeholder groups, which Senator Quinn referred to, or they derive from targeted Regulatory Reviews that the government has launched in particular sectors.

We have three streams of material that have fed into Bill S-6. We have the work of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee, often of a technical nature and to do with the integrity of the bill; we have the regulatory review consultation process with stakeholders and, finally, we have the targeted Regulatory Reviews that are led by departments.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the Honourable Senator Woo accept a question?

Senator Woo: Yes, of course.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I am informed that the console is now functioning. It is not an issue of our hybrid sitting, to make sure you understand the technical issue.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the adoption of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled Report relating to Government motion 14 (taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan), presented in the Senate on March 31, 2022.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I would like to ask Senator Woo a question.

Senator Woo, thank you for that informative speech. You have urged that the bill go to committee; however, it covers a broad area and a number of existing statutes. Do you see one committee being a main committee? How would committees of the Senate deal with such a broad piece of legislation? Thank you.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Patterson. The question and the decision on which committee or committees the bill goes to are now beyond my pay grade. I know the leaders are discussing this issue. I believe they are contemplating sending the bill to multiple committees. I think we can roughly guess which committees are suited for which amendments.

I do agree with you — if, in fact, this is what you were suggesting — that there should be a master committee; again, I leave that decision to the leadership.

What I will say, though, colleagues, is that if we agree that regulatory modernization is a good thing and that we should do it on a regular basis — sort of like housecleaning, right? — if we have to do spring cleaning every year, let’s think about how best to do it in the Senate and how best to organize ourselves so that we don’t have to debate which broom to use and which mop is the most efficient.

Personally, I would like to see us play a leadership role in the broader issue of regulatory reform for this country and to provide some leadership in Parliament in terms of pushing forward this agenda on a regular basis, regardless of the government in place. This bill will give us the opportunity to think about what some best practices might be.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled Report relating to Government motion 14 (taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan), presented in the Senate on March 31, 2022.