Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was godfrey.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I'll let Mr. Godfrey go first since it's his bill, and then I'll ask Mr. Godfrey if I have....
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We're okay with this. I guess there's one small question and one large issue, which I believe we may find some flexibility on. Under (2), it says “The Office shall, at least once every five years”. There have been some discussions with the other side about the notion of substituting three years for five years, simply because that puts us into a more normal kind of reporting framework, one that is well understood by the Commissioner for the Environment.
So my first question is whether the government would consider here and a bit later on substituting the word “three” for “five”.
My second question is relatively small and has to do with the first 15 sitting days as opposed to the first three. I don't feel very strongly about it. I'm just curious why that was increased.
The first point is more substantive, which is to take it down to a three-year reporting cycle, because I think that would give enough time for the plan to get developed but keep people's feet to the fire.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Do you want to answer that, Mr. Warawa? And then we'll go to Ms. Savoie.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I'd be open to discuss that.
The logic is that five years seems to be the very common timeframe within which legislation is reviewed. I'm thinking of CEPA, which this committee just reviewed a year ago, and it's to be reviewed every five years. When I was on the justice committee in the last Parliament, often that legislation, new legislation particularly, would be reviewed after a five-year period. The five-year review period seems to bring continuity within Parliament. But I'm open to discuss it.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My only point is that this is not like a legislative review for CEPA, which happens every five years. This is a reporting function that more resembles the kinds of reports the Commissioner for the Environment has put forward. Sustainable development strategies, if I'm not mistaken, are on a three-year reporting cycle as well. Since this is designed to address deficiencies in the reporting of sustainable development strategies, that would put it on the same.... I just think it would expedite matters. It would attend to the very deficiencies the commissioner and all of us have agreed to.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I was going to make a similar comment. I was going to suggest that it would make more sense to have that kind of reporting done within the life of a government.
Given the legislation this government has introduced regarding having legislated elections every four years, it would make more sense to have that kind of report done within the life of each government. If we're talking about accountability, putting it at every five years would be passing it on to the next government, in a sense. So I don't think the five-year requirement makes very much sense, on one hand.
On the other hand, by establishing a sustainable development office within the Department of the Environment, it seems to me we would be removing any kind of arm's-length reporting mechanism that seemed to be there before. So again, it seems to weaken this considerably.
We'll see what remains at the end of this bill, if anything.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I have Mr. Bigras, Mr. Vellacott, and then Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. Bigras.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, I will come back to the same arguments that my colleague Mr. Godfrey raised. This is not about examining a statute but to set up a follow-up mechanism for the government strategy. Policies, plans and programs are presented by the government and we should follow-up on these. A period of five years is a bit too long, but three years would allow us to make a good follow-up and to assess government policies.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I hear what the members are saying about the life of a Parliament, and so on, but I think there's been concern expressed by the present environmental...that you can end up with too short a timeframe too. We could be doing this every year, if we really want to hold.... On the other hand, if you're barely into government, I guess, and you're all set on doing this report, I'm not sure that three years will give you the adequate length of time you need in terms of reporting. And it may be too short a period of time as well.
You're making plans, and then you're reporting on those plans in terms of the advance or the progress or whatever on it. So I would raise the issue that maybe you'd want to go to four, or something like that, but three might be a little bit quick, actually, in terms of getting an adequate assessment in that period of time.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Before anybody decides to put an amendment in on this point--I'm seeing consultations going on across the way--I was wondering whether it would be possible to make a friendly amendment. I'm just wondering....
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Before we spring into legislative action here, why don't we just see where that's going?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
The present policy is three years, and we've heard that the problem with that is that when they report, they're reporting existing activities as opposed to the outcome of those activities. Sustainable development is looked at over a period of time. If it's too short, you're not going to be able to see what the results are. So that's the suggestion. The present timeframe is three years, and we're hearing some rumblings that it should be lengthened. So that's why the amendment we're discussing is suggesting five years. If the desire is to have it changed to three years, it could maybe be as a subamendment, and we could deal with it that way.
But I think the 15 days is standard. I've heard that, so I don't think we should be touching that.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Chair, I'm just curious as to why it's 15 rather than three.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
All right.
You wanted a subamendment. We could put forward a subamendment to change it from five years to three years. Would we have to move that now?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Does everyone hear the subamendment? We're dealing with that subamendment, which changes five to three.
Mr. Vellacott.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I know we talk in terms of getting at one particular government, whatever political stripe that happens to be, by way of doing it within the three-year span of time. Is there maybe not some merit to taking it in a non-partisan fashion where you're overarching two governments? It may be the same party, but it may be different as well, and there may be a little less temptation or opportunity to say, on something as important as this, that.... There may be some attempt to blame the people before, but--