Evidence of meeting #47 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I would just like to express my thoughts.
A bit earlier, the government presented an amendment seeking to put pressure on the authorities so that research and analyses would be carried out within a period of two years. We believe that this would allow us to reach the goal expressed by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois which, in passing, is completely spot-on, without making it mandatory. This will put pressure on the government and also give it some wiggle room, which is necessary. If the government has not reached the set target after two years without providing any information, it will have to explain itself. There will be pressure, but no mandatory deadline.
Points of view vary, of course, but in cases where a two‑year period might be too short for certain stakeholders and too long for others, we would have that a target. However, there is a difference between a target and an obligation. I do understand my colleague's goal. Actually, I would say that I don't disagree in principle, but I would prefer that we put pressure on the authorities to arrive at a decision within two years and that afterwards, if the authorities believe that the timeline was insufficient, they will have to explain why.
We have exactly the same goal, even if our way of getting there is a bit different. I believe it would be just as efficient or even more so to exert pressure on the government so that the work gets done in less than two years and to demand an explanation if the goal is not met, rather than provide for an obligation to reach the goal in less than two years.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I agree with Mr. Deltell. A one-size-fits-all approach could be diverting resources at the wrong time and the wrong place. It could actually slow down the process.
I think that being able to put the pressure when and where it's needed to get the results that we need is really the spirit of what we're trying to do here.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I did, but we can go to the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
This has a similar spirit as the last two motions. Given the comments of my colleagues, especially Mr. Deltell and Mr. Longfield, I want to highlight one element of this motion.
It says:
The Ministers may establish a time frame of more than two years if they determine that a proposed regulation or instrument cannot be developed in that time, in which case they shall publish their reasons in the Canada Gazette.
It seems to me that this motion really speaks to exactly what the two members were in favour of. This gives flexibility to the minister. There is pressure to not exceed two years, but there is flexibility in the ability for the minister to establish a different time frame of more than two years, if needed. They just need to propose the rationale.
I hope the members will reconsider and support this motion.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Ms. Collins, for that.
My question is especially in light of the amendment that the government brought forward, which talked about adding the two-year timeline and requiring a published statement and whatnot.
I'm curious and I will ask officials this: With amendment NDP-28, is this something that would be concurrent with that? I'm hoping to get some guidance from the officials as to where they see this in terms of the impacts. We're talking about different clauses of the bill. Is there a similar impact? What is the possibility of this affecting different parts of CEPA?
I'd like to ask for some clarification from the officials, if I could.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Chair, this is further to that same question for the officials. Ms. Collins was talking about publishing the reasons in the Canada Gazette. The amendment brought forward this morning, which we already approved, was that the minister shall publish in the environmental registry.
Perhaps we could have some clarification on just the difference between the two, and where people look for these reasons about what the delay is. It would be instructive.
Liberal
Laura Farquharson Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I will start with the fact there are timelines on lots of the steps that are taken under the bill. Just to clarify, the amendment you discussed previously, and you adopted a government motion related to that, that was moving from a draft risk assessment to a final risk assessment. When the final risk assessment is published, a statement about proposed measures to be taken is also published.
The amendment you passed said that, if it takes you more than two years, then the minister must publish reasons. Now you're debating timelines on subsequent risk management instruments.
When the final risk assessment is published, there's a statement about the measures that are going to be taken. The first measure is under what we call the CEPA time clock, which is in CEPA and says you have to get the draft regulation done in 24 months and the final one done in 18 months.
The issue has always been about what happens to the other risk management instruments. What are their timelines? The bill proposed that when the first risk management instrument was published, the ministers would have to state what the estimated timelines were for the other risk management instruments. That is to allow for new information to come up and also flexibility among risk management instruments, because if you put a hard deadline on those subsequent risk management instruments, you may find, for instance, that the nature of the industry changes. The instrument you proposed may not be the one you need, not the most effective, or it could be that there are other risk management instruments related to other substances that should move faster.
That's why the flexibility is there. I hope that helps somewhat.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I didn't get the answer between the minister publishing in the environmental registry versus Ms. Collins talking about publishing the reasons in the Canada Gazette.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I would say we use the Canada Gazette for official publications. I will have to look and see where these are. Let me check on that.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I wanted to remind the committee of that section. This isn't a hard deadline, but rather a specified deadline that has flexibility built in, because the minister may establish a time frame of more than two years if they determine that the proposed regulation or instrument cannot be developed in that time. Then they just need to give their rationale.
This is really about improving and helping prevent lengthy delays in implementing the full suite of risk management measurements.
I do hope my honourable colleagues will support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Is there anyone else before we go to a vote on NDP-28?
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I'm sorry, Chair, but I was hoping to have a response from the official.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's fine.
Ms. Farquharson, were you able to pinpoint that answer in the very short time we have given you?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
NDP-28 says to publish in the Canada Gazette. NPD-29 says to publish in the registry, and there's more flexibility in that.
Conservative
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
“More flexibility” just means that we operate it. I'm not sure there's more flexibility in it. We operate the registry and can put it on the registry ourselves. With the Canada Gazette, obviously, we're going through a different process.
I believe stakeholders consult both the registry and the Canada Gazette. I guess I'll stop there. It's the NDP motions that refer to different ones.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
If I may, Mr. Chair, if the two said the same thing, would the stakeholders be able to get the information from one source as opposed to drifting between two sources here? As a layperson, I would say that the Canada Gazette is more well understood than an environmental registry, but maybe people who work in this sector and who specifically look at CEPA on a regular basis are more familiar with the environmental registry. Perhaps we should have consistency between the two reporting channels.