Evidence of meeting #49 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 substances.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Those would be subjective approaches. The department will say, “We don't have time to deal with this, so we're going to deal with that, because we think it's more important.” That is what I'm hearing now.
Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Or we need to gather more information, or the market has changed and we need to do more analysis, and that's what would be—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Okay. That's great.
The intent of Ms. Collins' motion is to make sure that when that happens, there is a reporting mechanism to Parliament, through whatever instrument that is. It seems to be the annual report.
If that should be regularly the 24 months plus 18 months, when that has to be clearly understood...or are we looking here at making sure that it's part of the Canada Gazette after 24 months, for certain?
We don't want to add extra burden in here, but we want that accountability mechanism. We don't want to keep pushing it down the road because everybody's too busy, but say, “Here's some clarity on how we expect this to get fulfilled going forward.”
11:15 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I think there will be clarity. There will be clarity either way, and the clarity provided...it's less administrative burden in the annual report.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I'm failing on that.
The annual report is your accountability mechanism, so one of your accountability.... The one we're talking about here is the annual report, when the House of Commons and, therefore, the public can see that this is where this study of substance X is and what the timeline is for it to be reporting back to Parliament, as opposed to, “Well, we haven't got there yet.”
This is what we're looking for here. We're looking for some certainty around....
Like Ms. Collins says, we know there are things that are going to have to be shifted forward because of priorities in the government, but the ability to say, “We moved this backward and there's a new timeline on this, because we had to move forward with these more serious matters as a result”.... That reporting mechanism should be something we or the Canadian people get to see.
11:15 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The annual report is published annually. It's annual, so you will see it—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
You won't see the “why”, though. The minister won't be saying why this has moved off the table and isn't meeting its initial deadline.
What they're looking for here and what Ms. Collins' motion is looking for is a clear explanation, as you don't meet the timelines, of what the amended timeline is. Because you've missed a certain timeline, potentially, what is the amended timeline and can you please put that...?
Once an annual report says you've missed the first timeline, you've missed the second timeline and you've missed the third timeline, eventually somebody's going to say, “You're not taking this seriously.” That's what we're looking for. We're looking for an accountability mechanism. It's quite clear.
11:15 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Perhaps I had better ask colleagues about what amendments are on the table, because—
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, okay. I think the idea...there seems to be agreement that the annual report is a very effective instrument for the kind of accountability that we're looking for.
I'll go to Ms. Collins, and then Mr. Longfield.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in terms of comparing these two motions, I think one of the critical pieces in the amendment we're debating right now is the explicit tie-in to the measures proposed in the statement—the statement being the risk management plan. That is, if we lose this kind of general requirement for updates on timelines in the annual report, the fear is that we'll just see vague statements that other planned work is proceeding and it's soon going to be published and there will be an explanation for delays only when the delayed opposed measures are finally published. That would be way less useful. The amendment we're discussing right now, which we'll be voting on, sets up a check-in on implementation of risk management plans after two years, and that is the critical part.
I understand that the CEPA clock has 24 months versus the 42 months, and if it would make committee members and officials feel more comfortable, we could change my amendment, which currently says “the Minister having published all of the regulations or instruments” to “the Minister having published all of the proposed regulations or instruments” regarding the instruments proposed in the statement. That would really talk about the first 24 months, a two-year piece, and it would limit any kind of administrative burden.
However, I just want to reiterate. I read off those statistics about how many of these are being published each year, and it was zero to five. I think we should have capacity to deal with that number. Mostly, on average, it seemed to be two or three each year. I hope we'll keep in this critical part about the two-year check-in. If it would make committee members feel more comfortable, then we could just add that one word, to have “all of the proposed regulations or instruments” in the statement.
Of course, I can't amend my own amendment—
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That would be a subamendment. Somebody would have to propose—
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
However, if someone wanted to, that would be supportable, keeping in, critically, “more than two years have elapsed”.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I appreciate Mr. McLean's thoroughness on this and his wanting accountability, and that's really the purpose of what I want to bring forward as well, to specify a timeline and the reasons for any deviation from the original plan.
I think we cover that in what we're going to discuss next, so that's why I won't be supporting this subamendment. However, the one I'm bringing forward, I think, clearly states the accountability feature.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't see anyone else wanting to intervene on this.
Mr. McLean.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Well, I can't speak to one motion without speaking to the other, because the two are two considerations right now. What I do not see in Mr. Longfield's proposed amendment is the actual timeline. I do see the timeline in Ms. Collins' proposed amendment.
If it pleases the chair, I will move the subamendment, and I hope it's friendly, to put “proposed” in there.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Normally, as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we would need the amendment from the floor in writing, but I think this is pretty simple. You're proposing that we add the word “proposed”?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
That would be just before the word “regulations”, to now read, “the first proposed regulations within two years”. I'm just looking for that here.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let Mr. McLean. It's his subamendment, so we'll see what he has to say first.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Let's read it from the outset.
(3) If more than two years have elapsed after the publication of a statement respecting the development of subsequent proposed regulations...under subsection (1) or (2) without the Minister having published all of the regulations
That should be, I think, where “proposed” goes.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Does everyone see that?
Everyone can add “proposed” on their copy of NDP-31.1. That's not too complicated.
I guess we have to debate this, or we can go straight to a vote on adding the word “proposed”.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal