Environment Committee on Feb. 9th, 2023

[Laura Farquharson]

Sure. I think it's on the accountability reporting side where it sort of makes a difference.

There's an assessment done per substance. At the end of that assessment, it says that these are the risks, these are the likely sources of the risks, and here is our proposed way of managing those risks at that time. It will set out some proposed risk management instruments. Then, when the first risk management instrument is proposed, we have a statement about the timelines for developing those subsequent risk management instruments.

I think in terms of the accounting—i.e., whether you're keeping up with the timelines that you'd set out—one approach, which I think is MP Collins' amendment, would say that on sort of a per-substance basis, when you're not meeting those timelines, put something in the Canada Gazette to say why you're not meeting the timelines.

The annual report would be a summary. Every year it would look across all the risk management that we're doing and provide an update on where we're at. It's once-a-year reporting on where you're at on the risk management versus substance—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Is that for each substance?

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes. It's still all the substances there. You'd maybe have one on one, four on another and six on another. The annual report would say where we are on those timelines that we proposed. That would be versus, if I understood the amendment, reporting by substance. When you've missed your proposed timelines, then you'd immediately have to say that you've missed your proposed timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have Mr. Duguid, Ms. Collins and Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, this debate has been going on for quite some time. It's been a good debate on all sides.

I wonder if I could ask officials one more time to state very clearly and succinctly what the unintended effects would be of passing this amendment in terms of the risk management and risk prioritization process.

I take it from your commentary so far that this amendment would not help you in your work to protect the health of Canadians.

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes, I think that's right. I started out by saying that people are motivated to get these instruments in. Having additional timelines in legislation on subsequent risk management instruments, where there's a lot to be taken into account in prioritizing and there's a need for some flexibility, might not have the result you're looking for but would add administrative burden.

We understand the need for transparency. From our perspective, reporting once in the annual report is a more efficient way of providing that transparency. Every time we put in reporting obligations, they don't necessarily incent the action we're looking for, but they do create more work and take people away from the actual risk management, so the balance is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

I do think that reporting on each substance as it gets delayed is a good approach. I understand that it would take more resources, so I am also open to ensuring that we have a requirement for reasons for updating the timelines. Currently we do have a requirement for a progress report in the annual report, but that's not the same thing as updating Parliament on the reasons for the delay and providing a new estimated timeline.

The fact is that we do see delays in adding toxic substances, and we need accountability, not just transparency. That said, if we could find support around the table to amend this to have the requirement in the annual report rather than in the environmental registry, perhaps that would allay some of the concerns.

However, I cannot amend my own amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we should probably vote on this. I think we've discussed it around and around. I think Ms. Farquharson gave a very good explanation of what the effects of this amendment would be, so unless there's any more debate....

I'm just going to add one thing. I want to remind people that this bill was introduced one year ago today, so there's been a lot of discussion around it. It's a very technical bill, as we all know, and we are trying to understand everything and understand all these amendments and how they're working. With all due respect, Ms. Collins, I think that introducing this amendment at this stage makes it difficult in terms of moving forward and really understanding the effects.

I agree that we shouldn't rush it, but, on the other hand, we do want to get this bill passed.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Amendment G-13.1 is exactly the same thing.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, but it's in a different context. That was an amendment that was given in advance and we had a chance to look at it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy.

We'll go to Mr. McLean, Ms. Collins and Mr. Kurek.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

In good faith here, I think we have to make sure we understand what we're doing to Canadians here. I will introduce the amendment Ms. Collins is looking for, just changing the environmental registry to the annual report so that there's clarity of accountability about what's to be followed by the department and the minister. Upon moving that amendment, I would ask the department officials here whether that would lessen the burden they're talking about and whether they could quantify that burden. Are they talking about an extra six hours per year or are they talking about an extra 600 person-days per year? The scope of this burden is obviously something we're quite concerned about, so that would be instructive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Then are you proposing a subamendment?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you read it out?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Could you read it out, Ms. Collins?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The amendment is to change “environmental registry” to “annual report”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. That's pretty simple.

We'll debate that....

Do we need to debate that? No?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Could the whole thing be read again, one more time? Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure. You go ahead.

[A voice]

There's a copy of it.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Oh, there's a copy now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're changing “environmental registry” to “annual report”.