Evidence of meeting #48 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to clarify the question about accountability.
What would be included in the annual report? Could you go through what is included? If a deadline is missed, for example, and if two years pass, what is included in the annual report tabled in Parliament?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I can only point you to the amendment that you, if I'm right, have adopted, which says:
The Minister shall include in the annual report required by section 342 a report on the progress made in developing any subsequent proposed regulations or instruments.
That's what you passed; I believe that's what the committee passed. It says, “a report on the progress made”. How that's eventually implemented.... I don't know if there will be public servants after me, but it says, “a report on the progress”. Therefore, I would think it would say that we said we were going to do these in five months, 12 months, 36 months, and we've done two of the three, and the third we have delayed because we are focusing on X.
All I can really tell you is what you passed.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
That's based on the changes that have been made through NDP‑31.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
It was NDP‑31, yes.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just trying to get back on my phone the amended amendment, the amendment with the subamendment.
I guess my issue with it is that we've already passed an amendment about the annual report. We can have, perhaps, a more robust explanation, even something along the lines of what you proposed, Ms. Collins. However, the point that Ms. Farquharson made earlier about the risk management measures that are being taken was that the department needs some flexibility in terms of deciding which to focus on, which ones are more important and are going to have more impact than others. I feel like putting in a requirement to explain what's happening and why it's happening and to then state when it will be done is kind of tying the department's hands in terms of flexibility to decide which one would be more important and to observe what's happening in real time.
My understanding from talking to the officials now is that there is a lot of assessment going on in the department. Perhaps I could make a subamendment that doesn't say that the timelines will be established but rather that estimated timelines are to be listed, or something to that effect, so that it's not requiring a definite timeline on what will happen.
In some respects, a definite timeline does two things. One, in my mind, it adds to the administrative burden, and two, it constrains the ability of the department to make judgments on its own about where it should be putting its efforts in terms of efficacy as things unfold.
I don't know if you understand what I mean, but in her earlier comments, Ms. Farquharson was saying that they constantly have to make trade-offs about this. I'm not sure that what we're doing here is helping the department to actually most effectively do what we're asking it to do.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes, there will be a few points.
I think we have changed this to “the annual report”, which means that it wouldn't be on the kind of substance-by-substance basis that would increase the administrative burden.
I don't know how many times I'm going to say this. Right now, what we have is a requirement to update on progress, and that is not the same as giving reasons for the delay and giving time frames within which the instruments and the proposed regulations will be published. I think that ultimately the public expects a high level of accountability. I think we have adapted this motion to put in some flexibility. If there is a concern about having the statement made jointly, if we wanted to just strike the words “made jointly by the ministers”, that would be a very easy fix.
Someone else will have to propose this subamendment, since I can't amend my own amendment.
I do hope that we can move forward with this to ensure that we have strong accountability for the public.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry. I had Mr. Longfield before you, Ms. Taylor Roy. It's sometimes hard to keep track of both the screen and the room.
Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think to carry through with the subamendment, building on what's been brought forward by the Conservatives, with this being in the annual report, we could add to proposed subsection 78(3) the words “including an update on estimated timelines and reasons for any delay”. That would address what Ms. Collins was just saying. That puts an accountability piece to what we've just said would go into the annual report.
Now subsection (3)—I'll read it slowly—would say: “The minister shall include in the annual report required by section 342 a report on the progress made in developing any subsequent proposed regulations or instruments, including an update on estimated timelines and reasons for any delay.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Can you read just those words that are changing, not the whole thing?
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Following “regulations and instruments”, the change would be “including an update on estimated timelines and reasons for any delay”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's pretty simple. That's a subamendment that you're making.
Ms. Taylor Roy, you wanted to speak on the amendment. We're debating the subamendment now. If we are debating the subamendment, I have Mr. Weiler, and then, apparently Mr. Kurek, but you wanted to speak to the amendment.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Yes. I was going to make a similar subamendment, so I'm basically in favour of that subamendment.
Liberal
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this subamendment strikes the right balance. We do want to make sure that we have a sense of when these regulations are going to be coming forward and these measures are coming forward, as well as having reasons for where we're at. At the same time, we don't want to be adding a duplicate of things that are going to divert resources from administration in producing this information.
I think it makes sense to have all of this in one place so that it would be easily accessible in this manner.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks, Chair.
We're debating Ms. Collins' amendment—
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
My question is, however, if the subamendment that's been proposed.... I don't disagree with it. However, as it's proposed, is it in order? It's amending a previously passed amendment, as opposed to the current amendment that's being subamended.
Liberal