Environment Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Wonderful. Thank you.

I'm looking forward to asking some questions of our witnesses.

I have to be frank. As I think about this issue, the enforcement of CEPA, and put myself in the shoes of many of my constituents, this is something that they may not be very knowledgeable about, and this may not be something that touches them every single day. I'm wondering if you could help me understand a little bit—and please consider that some of our constituents may be watching at home. I'll direct this to whoever wants to answer it. When you talk about how you prioritize what you're going to study, when you talk about a risk-based approach, what does that mean? Could you give some examples as to how that might touch my constituents?

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

There are two things. We will answer your question, absolutely, but also, in an effort to clarify our process—if the committee chooses to do so—we can walk you through an investigative process until we turn the report over to the prosecutor, if this could help the committee better understand how we function as an enforcement body. That is an offer that I put on the table.

I will turn to Michael Enns to answer the current question.

[Michael Enns]

Thanks.

In terms of how we prioritize and what it might mean for your constituents, the worse the chemical, the worse its interactions with other chemicals and the greater its impact on the environment, the more likely we are to target businesses, people or groups of businesses that would release that substance into the environment. We use life-cycle analysis to determine that, which means that the receiving environment is taken into account, which means the impact of these things for years and generations to come are at the centre of what we choose to prioritize—bioaccumulation and so forth.

It also means that we target the businesses that we believe are the most likely to be non-compliant. This means that legitimate businesses that are not engaging in behaviours that would cause us to target them are less likely to see an enforcement official and have greater span to do what it is that they do to employ people and to bring jobs into your community.

That is what is at the centre of it. Looking at the chemicals and the pollutants and their relationship with one another and targeting businesses on that basis is not a simple matter, but we do it, and I believe we do it as well as anybody else in the world does.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

If you don't mind, I'm going to go on—if we have time, I'll come back—because I want to ask a couple of other questions, time permitting.

Mr. Walker, in response to an earlier question, you said that you don't rely on.... I'm not quoting you, but you said something to the effect of this: that you don't rely on U.S. enforcement decisions and penalties as a blueprint for your own decision-making. You can correct that statement if that was incorrect. That, to me, sounds like common sense. Can you explain why that is?

[Donald Walker]

Certainly. I didn't mean to give the impression that we don't work with our U.S. counterparts or that we would ignore the U.S. enforcement action in terms of the activities we would undertake ourselves towards pursuing an investigation.

We have regular communication with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We share information where appropriate and where permitted under the respective protections of information in each country.

The issue I was attempting to address earlier was simply the fact that the U.S. charges were under U.S. law. They weren't the same charges as those that were being pursued under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and we don't have perfectly mirrored legislation in terms of our two approaches to protecting the environment.

The other component would have been the fact that, as Mr. Enns mentioned, the penalties assessed in Canada are based on precedent in Canada. Twenty-six times the next largest environmental penalty ever is a recognition of the serious nature of the offence pursued in Volkswagen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The fines imposed on Volkswagen were paid into the environmental damages fund. I'd like to know who determines where the money paid into this fund goes.

Do you have a plan to determine if this money is going to one area rather than another?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Who would like to take that?

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

I can start the conversation.

The environmental fund from the Volkswagen fine, for example, is going towards climate change impacts. With any fund, there is a set of criteria. I do not have them on hand, but they are publicly available. Provinces, private companies and interested parties can apply to this fund and have to meet certain respected targets for this fund to be able to access the funding.

Every time a fund is allocated to this pool, there has to be a set of criteria that meet Environment and Climate Change Canada's objectives. It's all under that chapeau. In this instance, it's about air quality and climate change.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

I would have liked the answer in French. I wouldn't have needed to use the interpretation, and it would have been quicker.

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

I'm truly sorry. It's an occupational hazard.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Given the amounts discussed here, wouldn't it be appropriate to impose more fines? One witness told us that inspectors are more inclined to issue warnings than to prosecute. If there were more prosecutions, there would be more fines. You know what I mean. There could be funds to compensate for errors and breaches of the act.

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

I'll ask Mr. Walker to elaborate on the enforcement of the act and the terms and conditions of the tools we have available to us. It's important to understand that it's a matter of diversity. For the offences we have to deal with, we need all of these tools. It's not necessarily the amount that has an impact. What we want is to get people to correct the pollution issue. We want it done as soon as possible to prevent the risk from increasing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, that's all the time you have.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to echo some of the disappointment and frustration, not at the witnesses themselves, but really about not being able to ask questions of someone who directly worked on this case.

I don't want to repeat Mr. Albas's comments, but at this point I'd like to move a motion, as follows, that the committee report to the House that it is disappointed and frustrated that the committee was sent witnesses that are not aligned with the motion on Volkswagen's CEPA compliance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, you're going to have to let me pause here for a moment, Ms. Collins. I'll get right back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins, maybe you could repeat your motion slowly so that the clerk can write it down so that we can be sure what it is you would like to be voted on.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The motion is, that the committee report to the House that it is disappointed and frustrated with the Liberal members' decision to send witnesses that are not aligned with the motion on Volkswagen CEPA compliance agreed upon by the committee.

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

Did she say “Liberal government” or “Liberal members”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

“Liberal members”—but we can debate that.

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

No. I just wanted to make sure I heard her correctly because I think it would probably be “government”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, that's part of the debate, I guess.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'd be happy to have a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, Ms. Collins, go ahead and speak to your motion.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I really want to stress that this is no way a reflection on the witnesses themselves. I deeply appreciate your spending your time and sharing expertise today. This is really about the decision that was made by the government to send witnesses today who don't have direct experience. There have been numerous questions that we've asked where we've had the answer that they can't speak to it, that to the best of their knowledge...and also acknowledging that no one here was actually working on that file directly at the time. So, yes, I want to express to the House our disappointment and our frustration with this.