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.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
It's on the written amendment that I have. It would be on line 5, just before the last word, “regulations”.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're going to vote on that.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Does anyone have anything to say about NDP-31.1 as amended?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Can I ask Mr. Longfield, at this committee meeting, what the substantive difference is between the wording that is in Bill S-5 and the wording in the motion that he put forward? It seems to me to be one and the same, except we're more definitive in Ms. Collins' amendment.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
If you look at how this would roll out, mine would be based on an annual report versus looking at it every two years. If there's a deviation on an annual basis, this would give us a tighter timeline in terms of review, and each year we would hear about any changes, including the estimated timelines and reasons for delay.
This puts the review within the annual report process versus having a separate tracking process, which would have multiple departments tracking separately.
I would prefer to keep it in the existing reporting structure and just add more details required within the existing reporting structure, instead of setting up a separate tracking mechanism.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Just to clarify, both of us are proposing the annual report. My amendment is that the minister shall publish in the annual report the reasons for the delay in timelines. In this, really, again, the critical part is that it specifies that after two years have elapsed we're going to get the information we need.
Right now, when proposed regulations or instruments are...what's going forward is there isn't this check-in after the publication of a statement and the subsequent proposed regulations. Again, the critical piece here is that after that first part of the CEPA clock, the 24 months, there will be this ensured reporting mechanism.
I think Mr. Longfield's and my amendments are getting closer and closer together. I hope the committee will go forward with my amendment, just because it has that one added layer of accountability here.
These are toxic substances. I hope that we can move forward and go to a vote very soon.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
My question would be to the officials on the contrary approach on this, which means Mr. Longfield's approach and his wording on this, and the administrative burden that would entail in having every timeline assessed on an annual basis, versus assessing it on the basis of when it looks like you're going to miss your timelines.
Would this add more or less burden to the administrative—
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Which would be less burdensome? That's the question, I think.
11:25 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I think a consolidated report on the updates, the progress and the subsequent risk-management instruments that explains the reasons for delay is probably.... Well, we're talking about it in the annual report, so it's less burdensome in that you're not now tracking two years and asking what's going on. You're just reporting on whether there's been a delay or not, and you're doing it annually.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. McLean is living in my head. He's already asked the question I was going to ask.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I have just a quick note. I hope the department is already tracking that 24-month period, because that is part of the CEPA clock. I think they probably are....
Again, when we're talking about administrative burden, we're talking about zero to five publications a year that are happening right now. If all of the measures are being implemented in accordance with our CEPA clock, then there's no administrative burden at all.
Our goal here is to try to get as timely, as accountable and as transparent a process as possible. Again, I hope the committee will support it, and I hope we can go to a vote.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll go to a vote, because there are no other comments or questions.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We adopted Mr. McLean's subamendment, and we were discussing the amendment.
Are there any members who wish to intervene?
(Amendment as amended negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Longfield, I think you have something to propose.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I circulated an amendment before the meeting. I'll just read it in English:
That Bill S-5, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after subsection 78(3) on page 21 the following:
Update on estimated timelines
(4) The report on progress referred to in subsection (3) shall include an update on estimated timelines and reasons for any delay.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This will be amendment G-13.2. Is there any debate?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now going to vote on clause 22 as amended.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
On division.
(Clause 22 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
