Environment Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel like I need to ask this question again. If any of our members asked for the PPSC as a witness.... There seems to be a lack of clarity here in understanding the various roles among government, enforcement and prosecution. They are three separate branches of this process. The purpose of this specific study, from my understand, was to be about CEPA itself and the enforcement process, and to bring witnesses forward for that purpose. We're eating up that time. We're eating up my question time on this. We've debated this over and over again. Your disappointment has been raised repeatedly on camera for everyone to hear, and you'd like to waste more time now bringing this to the House. You have other means to bring this to the House if it is such a contentious issue for you. It's really not the best use of the committee's time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Schiefke.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to echo the thoughts of my colleague, Ms. Saks, on this one, as well as my colleague, Mr. Baker, who previously pointed out that you can't have it both ways.

We wanted to go through an exercise where we could have discussions on different witnesses who we would invite to committee. That was shot down by one of the Conservative members who said no, it's not our job to do that. Now we're in a situation where the witnesses have been brought forward. They were asked by the department to directly respond to questions as outlined in the motion itself, and were brought forward. The department made their decision to bring the experts forward who they thought could best answer these questions.

This is my personal opinion on this, Mr. Chair. They came here; they answered the questions. I don't think the questions were responded to in a way that was very helpful to the point that the honourable NDP member was trying to get across. She was looking for information that would be helpful to try to show in some way that there was a mishandling of this particular case, that in some way the government tried to get involved and let this corporation off easy.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is this a debatable motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. My understanding is yes.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Then, as the meeting went on and the responses weren't in line with the direction the NDP member was hoping this was going to go, at that point, both the Conservatives and the NDP decided that they would start showing frustration. I think the frustration they're expressing towards the inability to answer certain questions is actually more so an expression of the questions being answered but not to the liking of those members.

I would go even further, Mr. Chair, to say that I think it's embarrassing to conduct this kind of an exercise in front of the witnesses we brought forward, who are giving us their time on taxpayers' money, who have done their very best to answer these questions in the most professional manner possible—and I think they've done that very well—only to be witness to this debacle that is being put forward by both the Conservative member as well as the NDP member.

I don't think this is something that Canadians want to see us do. If they were going to approach this, I think it could have been handled differently, by perhaps asking for the witnesses to be excused and for us to have this discussion offline. However, they opted to do it in public, so here we are.

I would go so far as to say that this is something that I think the opposition has strained to do from the beginning, Mr. Chair.

There were witnesses who were brought forward by the opposition members, so we added on another meeting to discuss this and now we're having that meeting. Even with that meeting that was agreed to, which was put forward by the Conservatives and the NDP, now they're not happy with the way that the questions have been responded to.

Once again, I'll end by saying that I think this is incredibly disrespectful to the witnesses we've invited here, and I don't think it does justice to the work that we need to be doing on this committee.

I'll end it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, given all the hands that are up, I'm going to let the witnesses go at this point, because it's not fair to them.

I want to thank the witnesses for the time they've taken and the effort they've put into giving their answers.

Please feel free to go about other business that you have. Thank you for coming. We really appreciated your insights.

Mr. Schiefke, if you could take your yellow hand down, it would make my life a bit easier.

We will go now to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In terms of process, the clerk has done a good job of bringing the witnesses to us, has given us advance notice of who those witnesses would be. We've had days with that in our inbox, knowing who was coming before us. It's not fair to the clerk to have her read our minds to figure out whether she has all the witnesses who may have been on other people's minds who weren't on her mind. I think the direction she followed was to get the right department in here so that we could talk about the enforcement of CEPA.

I was hoping to have a question come in about the relationship between the witnesses and the public prosecution services. It's important to see the separation there. I think Ms. Collins was going to this with her questions about whether the Prime Minister's Office was involved or whether ministers' offices were involved.

In terms of the identification of cases and then the prosecution of cases—to make sure that's done independently—that was being established by our witnesses today. They were setting forth a recommendation for prosecution for a case.

Now, the prosecution of the case has happened. Committees aren't prosecutors. We're not juries. We're a partisan group of people. This wouldn't be the place to get an impartial viewing on a case that Volkswagen is already being prosecuted for.

I think the process has been followed. We could have intervened at some point in the last several days to say, wait a minute, we wanted to hear from—

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I'm in the middle of doing something really, really—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I would say in future if you get your meeting notice and if people aren't on the notice that you wanted to see, maybe you could get back to the clerk and make that suggestion or “Reply All“ so that we see that suggestion being made. I don't see this as short shrifting any of our study. I think we were getting to the right points. Also, having the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development have a second overview to make sure this wasn't a politicized process, which might have been the risk that Ms. Collins was looking at at the beginning of this study.... Having the department come at the end of the study was an unusual step that we took. The Conservatives and the NDP both agreed to shortening the study by a meeting, and we voted against that.

I'm at a loss. It's good the witnesses aren't here because it is a bit embarrassing. It looks like we weren't doing our job, when in fact I think we did our job. And the clerk did a great job of bringing the people forward. We had a lot of witnesses here today we could have heard from instead of doing this debate that we're now doing.

With that, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Chair. I'm just disappointed in the way politics is playing out in this committee. I know it's playing out in other committees. I know people are frustrated. I know that we're going through a lot of things with the pandemic. And here we are at committee trying to do the best for our constituents, but this is not doing the best for our constituents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Two things. First of all, I want to make sure we're talking government. That was adopted as a friendly amendment. We don't need to discuss that. That would be my first point.

The second thing is I don't know that I'll argue with Ms. Saks, but I think we're both pretty new to the committee. I'm in meeting two. My real understanding of this issue, of course, came from what I saw in the press. There are outstanding questions clearly the public is looking at. Why did it take four and a half years? Why were the charges different? Why was the money different? To me, those are clearly some of the critical nubs of this issue that remain unanswered. Certainly, from my perspective, this is not a generic motion. It was a specific motion about a specific issue that did identify who we needed to talk to. Contrary to what Mr. Baker said, this is very different, when you have government departments and officials invited, as opposed to witnesses who we put forward.

I understand this is the last meeting and we haven't answered through today, which would have been what I would hope to do...some of those critical outstanding issues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. McLeod.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, can you just confirm what the motion is? Is it pertaining to members or is it pertaining to the Liberal government?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a good question. Somebody suggested that it should be government. I think you proposed that friendly amendment.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay, that was in force, so now we are debating the motion specifically to the Liberal government that we're disappointed as a committee. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let me just double-check that, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, it's government because Ms. Collins accepted your amendment to the amendment.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Perfect. I really appreciate that, because this makes it very clear.

The motion itself talked about Volkswagen and it talked about charging. A critical piece of what Conservative members wanted to talk about today was the whole spectrum and it seemed we only got part of it. I think it's perfectly relevant for us, as a committee, to espouse frustration and disappointment, and then to have a vote on this. I would simply point out that the government was in charge of sending which representatives it deemed relevant. Whether that was malicious by design or it was just an oversight in terms of incompetence or something in between, ambivalence, I don't know, Mr. Chair. But what I will say is I was disappointed by not being able to get critical answers to the question: was the public prosecution office supplied with the proper resources so they could confidently take on a company like Volkswagen and pursue it as successfully as what was done in the United States?

I will vote in favour of this motion specifically because I do think we need to start sending this government a message to take this committee seriously. I'm sorry some other members believe it's not in the interest of our constituents, and that we should be doing other things. That's why I want this to be settled by a democratic vote, and then we'll decide where the committee goes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I have a few points I need to make.

Firstly, when I was first elected over a year ago, I was excited to be part of this committee to protect the environment. I thought that the folks who were here today were answering questions in a thoughtful way. I think they play an important role in doing just that.

I'd like to believe that the other members from all parties who are here today are here for that same reason. I think so. I think what happens sometimes—or I think has happened here—is that we've lost sight of that.

Even if you don't think the witnesses have answers to all of the questions or provide the answers that you would like to hear, you take the opportunity that you have with the witnesses and the committee's time to make the most of that time. If you don't like the scope of what they're able to speak to or the process that was undertaken, or you think that somebody somewhere in the government didn't make the appropriate decision, then you can raise that with the chair. There are avenues to raise that. The avenue is not here because we take time away from what we're here to do. We're here to learn and make recommendations to government to actually protect the environment. That is why I'm here. I didn't run for office to sit here and debate procedural motions that should be debated outside of committee time. That's where that should have been done.

That's the first point.

Secondly, the idea that there's now a motion that we're all forced to debate takes away time from what we're here to do, which is to understand how we can improve the enforcement of CEPA, which touches Canadians' lives in many ways. That's what Canadians and my constituents would want us to be doing. That's secondarily problematic.

Thirdly, I understand that the motion's been amended to say “government”. At the end of the day, I think the fact that it was brought forward with “Liberal members” shows that there was a misunderstanding of how this process works. That to me is disappointing. It's disappointing that the Liberal members in this committee were brought out and criticized in the initial motion as though we had some sort of discretion in that decision.

Fourthly, the process for selecting witnesses—as Mr. Albas told me very clearly last time—is well established. Last time, when I had a meaningful contribution to make—not partisan or political, just somebody who could speak to something that we were studying in a way that I thought other witnesses wouldn't be able to as well—I offered that. I was told how wrong I was for bringing that forward because the witnesses were approved by the subcommittee. Now, I understand that in this particular study, that process was a little bit different.

The point I'm making is the same one that Mr. Albas reminded me of last meeting, which is that the process for selecting witnesses is well established. If we don't like the process, we don't jump up to have a debate in the middle of a working meeting where we're learning about how we can improve the enforcement of CEPA and protect the environment. We certainly don't introduce motions that cast blame upon other members of the committee who have absolutely nothing to do with that process.

All I'm saying is that this was an opportunity. I'm disappointed. I was learning a lot. I think that if we want to have procedural debates, let's have them. There's a subcommittee for that. There's a chair and a clerk. Let's have that discussion.

To have all of the members of the committee on the record debating this is disappointing, when we could be on record hearing from people who are really thoughtful, knowledgeable, affect our lives every day and protect our environment. That's why I came to this committee. That's what I would hope we would be doing.

I would urge us to learn from this experience. In future meetings, let's focus on the topic at hand. I'm happy to have debates with Mr. Albas, Ms. Collins, the chair and anybody else who wants to about how we select witnesses and ensure that happens properly.

The last point I'll make is that I think it is incumbent—as Mr. Albas reminded me last meeting—upon all of the members of this committee to make sure that the types of witnesses that they want brought forward are actually invited to speak. I hear what Mr. Albas is saying, which is that this is different than the last meeting and study. What's not different is that the process is well established, all of the members of the committee know what that process is and all of the members of the committee have an opportunity to present witnesses as suggestions.

In fact, what would have been a thoughtful thing to do—and that I certainly think I would have done if I were interested in the questions that some of the members wanted to raise about the prosecution of this particular case—would have been to recommend or request, through the process that is well established, that the prosecutors be invited to this meeting and that they be heard from, so that you can ask those questions.

The onus is also—as I was reminded last time by other members of the committee—on members of this committee to propose witnesses or, at the very least, departments or categories of witnesses to make sure that the right types of witnesses, with the right expertise, are brought forth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe to go first to Mr. Schiefke's implication that my frustration or disappointment came after the questions, I think that if he will check the record, he'll see that the first thing I said in my remarks was that I was disappointed and frustrated. I would say that the Conservative members started off their line of questioning and their comments with their frustration and disappointment at the fact that we immediately heard from these witnesses that none of them had direct experience.

I don't want to take up too much of this time. I hear Mr. Baker's and Ms. Saks' comments about wasting committee time, and I guess I would just encourage the Liberal members. You've had a number of chances to speak. If you are worried about wasting time, perhaps, let's get on with it and vote on the motion.