Government Operations Committee on March 10th, 2020

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

I read that, since 2017, Fisheries and Oceans Canada hasn't complied with the “one-for-one” rule. I didn't see any consequences in the bill for non-compliance with the rule.

If a department or agency decides not to comply with the “one-for-one” rule, will it face consequences and, if so, what are they?

[James van Raalte]

I'll try to be very quick. There are no consequences within the act. Compliance within the act is for the Government of Canada as a whole, so as a whole, the Government of Canada is in compliance within the act. We do report when individual ministries are working outside of that and not necessarily living up to the spirit of the act.

I am happy to report that DFO will be bringing forward a series of regulatory changes within the next year that will reduce the administrative burden in its portfolio and bring it almost within full compliance of the legislation. As my colleague from Health Canada indicated, this is a department that is challenged in having to make trade-offs that can affect the performance of the regulatory framework within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they are running into challenges in identifying stock that can reduce burden.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Our final five-minute intervention will go to Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I may not even need it. I feel that there have been some fantastic questions around the table.

Section 6 stipulates that the President of the Treasury Board “may establish policies or issue directives respecting the manner in which [the one-for-one rule] is to be applied.” Pursuant to section 7, the Governor in Council may also make regulations respecting “the regulations that the Treasury Board may exempt from the application of that section and the categories for which, and the circumstances in which, such an exemption may be granted.”

What exemptions have been granted to date?

[James van Raalte]

As I've reported, 88 exemptions have been granted to date: in the area of tax policy; in the area of mandated requirements by the government, either by a court or by an international decision; and in terms of economic or environmental emergency. The list is fully published in the annual report, so it's public information, but if a summary would be helpful for you, we could provide that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Without having that in front of you, in your recollection, are there any themes that have emerged in the exemptions, any departmental specifics?

[James van Raalte]

The biggest package of exemptions relate to our relationship with Ukraine at a certain point in terms of that government's regime and how we wanted to apply conditions. I'm sorry, there's a legal or technical word that escapes me.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is it “sanctions”?

[James van Raalte]

Sanctions, that's it. Thank you. That's the biggest package of exemptions and they named people, so it's a counting exercise. When I say 88, the regulation may be a sentence.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We've touched on some of these themes, particularly as they relate to emerging technologies and uncertainties with the new economy. I'm curious to know whether, looking forward into the future, you anticipate there being sectors that this perhaps won't apply to. I know this was asked in a different way, but the answer wasn't necessarily as full as I would have liked.

[James van Raalte]

That's a forward-looking question, and I think it's outside of administrative burden. However, one of the themes that have come out of the regulatory reviews is this issue of emerging technologies and emerging sectors, and departments and ministers seeking authorities for, for example, regulatory sandboxes, which suspend rules for a period of time so that both government and industry can figure out how things are going to work, and work better on instrument choice and developing new regulations. Our centre for regulatory innovation will be helping to support departments in that area.

This is something new and unexplored, but I think in a year or two or three, in testimony anticipated before this committee, you'll be hearing more and more about that type of regulatory experimentation so that we can foster and grow those emerging industries within Canada.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, that concludes my questions.

I just want to thank these two fine professionals for being before us here today and answering our many questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Green, you're taking the words out of my mouth, because I was about to thank them as well.

Before I do so, for the benefit of colleagues around this table, in direct response to a question posed by Mr. McCauley on how you calculate the benefits, whether it be through cannabis legislation or some others, the committee has the opportunity, should it choose to do so, to write directly to departments to ask those questions, as opposed to going through the Treasury Board Secretariat. That's an option that could be easily handled through this committee.

Mr. Loyst and Mr. Van Raalte, I want to concur with Mr. Green. Thank you so much for your testimony. It's been much appreciated and very informative.

My last comment will be that if there were questions some of my colleagues may have asked that you were not able to answer because of time constraints, please forward the answers to those questions directly to the clerk so that we can share them with the rest of the committee. Once again, thank you for your testimony.

Colleagues, we will suspend for about two minutes and go in camera for some committee business. We are suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]