Government Operations Committee on Dec. 4th, 2014

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

No. We still have not voted on amendment NDP-3.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Fine.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

The result of the vote on amendment NDP-3 will apply to NDP amendments 4 to 10.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am confused.

Are we on NDP-3 to clause 7? The same reasoning applies. Okay. Let us add NDP-3 to the lot and that will be okay.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We will now vote on NDP-3.

The result of the vote on NDP-3 will also apply to NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-9 and NDP-10.

(Amendments NDP-3 to NDP-10 negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now vote on clause 7.

(Clause 7 agreed to)

We will now examine amendment NDP-11 to clause 8.

I will first read amendment NDP-11 before making a decision on whether or not it is in order.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I thought I had had the confirmation that all of the amendments were in order.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I received the amendments and I will give you my decision later. It is my prerogative to decide whether they are receivable or not.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Very well. They probably are.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Amendment NPD-11 reads as follows:

That Bill C-21, in clause 8, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 3, with the following: “done under this Act, except in the case of serious or irreversible environmental damage or an accident causing the death of a person.”

The chair feels that amendment NPD-11 is not in order. I will explain my decision.

The purpose of Bill C-21 is to create An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. The bill states that the Crown has total immunity from all legal action or any other procedure. The purpose of the amendment would be to lift that immunity in certain cases.

TheHouse of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 766, states the following:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair is of the opinion that the amendment is contrary to the principles of the bill as adopted at second reading by the House on November 17. Consequently, I declare the amendment not receivable.

Since there are no other amendments to clause 8, we will vote.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

In Clause 9, we have an amendment from the NDP, NDP-12. I will read it for the committee in English:

That Bill C-21, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 3 the following: “(2) The report must contain the following information: (a) a list of the regulations that have been made and repealed pursuant to section 5 during the year; (b) a summary of the impact of each repeal of a regulation, taking into account the economic, social and environmental factors; (c) the expected and net effects for each repealed regulation; and (d) a description of the consultations held during the repeal process.”

Is there debate?

I am going to ask Mr. Ravignat, who introduced the amendment, to explain its rationale.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I will be pleased to do so.

Obviously, it is about transparency. We want to ensure that the public has access to the information needed to know which regulations have been changed and how this was done. Moreover, it would be very useful for businesses to know this. The possible impacts this bill could have are clear, aside from the reduction in regulations affecting SMEs and the evolution of the one-for-one rule in the future.

Rather than spending taxpayers' money for nothing, we should see to it that the report contain obligations to report on how the government is using this act, and those accountability obligations should be clear; it is that simple.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

Mr. Albas, did you want to speak to the amendment?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I can appreciate where the member opposite is coming from; however, if we go back to testimony we heard during our study of this particular bill, there are already provisions.

First of all, all departments carry four regulatory plans so that they communicate in advance of any proposed changes with interested parties. They can go and see what the proposals are for regulations to be reviewed or looked at, so they can contact the department from there.

Then as a part of the regular process, a regulatory analysis impact statement is let out that basically addresses all of proposed paragraph (b), all of (c), and all of (d), so that people can have that kind of transparency. If someone in my riding goes and reads the Canada Gazette, they can find out what consultations have already been done with stakeholders. They can already find out what exactly in layman's terms the benefits and the costs of the regulatory change will be and why it's even being brought forward.

Again, the Canada Gazette prepublication—that's the Canada Gazette part I—will allow someone to be able.... It doesn't matter who you are in this country, you can bring forward your suggestions, and then those suggestions are accumulated and produced in the second Canada Gazette. So the government actually says what it will do and what it heard, and if there were any changes because of that.

Finally, once this particular one-for-one rule is applied, it is part of the score card that is put out by Treasury Board every year. It clearly lists all regulations that have been amended under the one-for-one. All that information is clear and available to taxpayers, to business owners, and to the average citizen. So as far as I can see, at best, all of this is redundant and it is indicative that either the NDP does not understand the bill or they do not understand our current processes.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to suggest that no member should vote for this, because, again, adding more of the same is redundant. I thought we were here to try to end redundancies.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Trottier, you have the floor.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes, just as Mr. Albas said, my understanding is the Canada Gazette process already includes the regulatory impact assessment statement. That's a statutory requirement in the Statutory Instruments Act.

I was hoping to hear from Mr. Vandergrift, who has some expertise in this area. The regulatory impact assessment statement, does it contain the information that's included in this amendment already?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Do you have any information you would like to share with us, Mr. Vandergrift?

[Michael Vandergrift, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Yes, the regulatory impact assessment statement lays out a number of analytical requirements for regulations. That's all spelled out in what's called the cabinet directive on regulatory management. That's a publicly available document. It lays out the requirements for every regulatory impact assessment statement, including such things as consultation requirements, cost-benefit analyses, international cooperation issues, federal-provincial issues, and impact issues for various stakeholders.

The requirements for what is to be in a regulatory impact assessment statement is laid out in this cabinet directive on regulatory management, which is a publicly available document. All regulators follow that document.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Based on that, this regulatory impact assessment statement is done for all regulatory changes, not just those that are done under the one-for-one rule. So why would we have a process for the one-for-one rule different from the rest of our regulatory changes? I think it would make more sense to have a standard regulatory impact assessment statement done across all of government.

Is that a fair statement, Mr. Vandergrift?

[Michael Vandergrift]

It does apply to the full range of the government regulatory activity, yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Ravignat's name on my list.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I have nothing to add.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I have no other names on my list.

We will now vote on amendment NPD-12.

(Amendment negatived)

We will now examine clauses 9 to 11.

(Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Shall the preamble carry?