Evidence of meeting #6 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
We were relying on the federal government's regulation-making provisions being open and transparent.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I have just one point. Our position is that this would basically make unworkable the setting in place of regulations. There's an obvious process for it in the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, which can look at any regulation they choose. So our preference is that we leave in place the structure that's already there.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how the situation would be difficult or unworkable? I've learned that, in the case of another bill, the Immigration Committee agreed to have the regulations looked at in committee.
Why isn't the parliamentary secretary in favour of transparency and debate in committee? We could give proper consideration to the regulations, which are very important. These are not minor regulations.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
To reiterate, there's already a committee set up to take a look at the regulations as they're coming through the process. The process has been established.
If you look at pages 19 and 20 of the bill, there are 15 different paragraphs there that will have regulations. This amendment says that every last one of them is going to have to come before the House of Commons to be approved, so I think it's obvious to members that almost....
I don't know how it will be workable, but it looks to me that it would be unworkable.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I just wondered if the officials can let us know what other committees have imposed on regulations the route of having to go to the House, rather than just to the Governor in Council.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
This would be a unique process in the nuclear area. I've been involved in many regulation-making exercises, and I actually haven't gone through such a process in which the regulations would have to be introduced first in the House.
Just to clarify, the regulation-making process is quite complex, and the policy followed is that proposed regulations are published in Canada Gazette, Part I, with an extensive regulatory impact analysis statement. This statement includes economic and other considerations associated with the proposed regulation and provides for an extensive consultation period with anybody who's interested. That would usually be industry, for example, or non-government organizations of some sort, but also any member of this committee or anyone else would be equally able to comment and make representations. What the committee would choose to do with its views, of course, is not known to me.
All of that would have to be done prior to the regulations being made in Canada Gazette, Part II. At all times, even after the regulations are made, all regulations stand, subject to the review of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
So there is a very extensive consultation process in place, which the committee can become extremely active in, if it so chooses, as can any other person.
Conservative
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find it curious that Mr. Anderson considers this option unworkable, whereas it would be normal to proceed in this manner in such an important case as this. In fact, these are policies that are being established, and a change in orientation. I would find it hard to understand if, in five years, he himself didn't request this because he would like to have the opportunity to discuss the matter in committee.
You say this has never been done in the case of the nuclear issue. But we're talking here about a small part of the federal government's overall power. However, it takes this kind of approach toward the committees on other matters. It isn't because this has never been done on the nuclear issue that it's infeasible. I don't understand why you find this more difficult than anything else. We're coming back to study appropriations and all kinds of other issues.
Mr. Anderson, we know perfectly well that, by submitting something directly to the House, we have much less of a chance of knowing the how and why of the regulations. We also know that the consultation is often directed by the sitting minister and that there isn't at all the same type of consultation in the committees.
How much time would it take to conduct this kind of consultation? It seems to me it wouldn't take more time than in the case of a statute. These regulations will be as important as the act itself.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
I agree that regulations are extremely important, and that is why it is important that they go through a full consultation process. As provided for in this piece of legislation, it would go through the full consultation process, publication in Canada Gazette, Part I and Part II, and the various requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act, which are extremely onerous.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to inform the people around the table that the amendment introduced by the Bloc Québécois was inspired by the Tobacco Act. We didn't make up this amendment: these provisions already exist in another act.
So if it's feasible in the context of the Tobacco Act and doesn't seem too complicated or unworkable, I don't see why we couldn't do this as well in a bill as important as this one.
Mr. Chair, you missed my speech, which was very interesting.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
But since you don't vote, that's not too serious.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm afraid a chair has to multi-task, as we all do at times.
Is there any response?
December 6th, 2007 / 10:45 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada
I agree that the regulations are extremely important. The purpose of delegated legislation in any act--and there is a lot of it; the statutes of Canada are like this and the regulations are like this--is to spare Parliament, just because there is so very much work to be done. Certainly you're correct, it is possible nevertheless to require that the regulations be brought before the House. That's a decision here.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I don't know if this is the final point or not, but we have a full consultation process put in place now, as Ms. MacKenzie pointed out. Adopting this amendment would require that each regulation put forward would go through a process in which it would have to go to the House, and it would come back to the committee, and then it would go back for concurrence to the House or wait 30 days, and then it would go through the regular process we have now. We're talking even about the hiring of employees of the tribunal. I just find that unnecessary. We've got a good process in place that seems to be working, and I would ask members to oppose the amendment.