Evidence of meeting #13 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to echo some of Mr. Baker's remarks, because one of the reasons that I joined this committee was that I have a degree in chemistry and I have a degree in pharmacy, so the health aspect of the environment was very important to me in reviewing CEPA and making sure that Canadians were protected from material that would be released into the environment and would have a direct impact on people's health. This is one of the reasons why I decided to join, including also combatting climate change and making sure that we leave a better environment to the next generation.
Having been involved in studies in the past, one thing I've done with my own studies is to make sure that when I propose a study, I also look at the full value and the full context of the study to make sure that I try to bring out information that I think would be relevant.
We get the list of the witnesses beforehand, so nobody is blind as to who the witnesses are when the meeting happens. There is ample opportunity for all of us—and I'm not picking on one particular person—to read the notice of meeting. It has a list of all the witnesses there, prior to every meeting.
If I'm proposing a study, obviously there is a personal interest, but I think there is also an interest for the country. I would want to get the broadest range of witnesses to make sure that my topic was thoroughly studied from beginning to end, that we had all the information and that we made sure we created a report for Canadians that would be thorough. They would be able to read the report and they would understand why this study was started, what the purpose of the study was and how it was going to affect me or my constituents.
Obviously, the CEPA review is going to have a broad effect on society as a whole. As a pharmacist and someone who studied chemistry, I think I would want to make sure that the enforcement capacity was there. If you don't have the enforcement capacity, it's not really going to be helpful.
We all know who the witnesses are. The witness list is not a surprise at any given time. When we get our notice of meeting, we have the witnesses. I try to suggest witnesses who I think can provide not only one context but a much broader view, because the environment should not be a partisan issue. What we should be debating about on the environment is how we reach the objectives that we need to get reach.
If you want to do this in a broad-based way, then I think we need the widest range witnesses. Those witnesses should be known to us all. If I suggest some witnesses and somebody else suggests some witnesses they would suggest.... If witnesses needed to be called.... The witness list was published beforehand. To blame the Liberal Party or the Liberal government or whatever you say, I don't think that's very fair, because everybody saw the witness list. This was not a surprise. For these witnesses who came today, their names were published.
You knew beforehand. We all knew beforehand who would be here, who would not be here and what would be their fulsome contribution to the study and to the committee. That's something that's known to us all. Whether that's discussed at the subcommittee or whether it's discussed after, those names are known to us all. I just want to make that clear.
Thank you, Chair.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I actually want to give my time over to Madam Pauzé. She did have her hand up. With the time available, I would like to graciously allow her to take the floor—she has waited so patiently—for the sake of the committee and it being a balanced debate.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Well, just a second. I appreciate that very much, but Mr. Schiefke is next. He can give his time to Madam Pauzé if he wants, but she would follow Mr. Schiefke. Either way, Madam Pauzé will get to say something.
Mr. Schiefke, did you want to say something?
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I'm pleased to give my time to Ms. Pauzé to give her a chance to speak.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Schiefke. It's very kind of you.
We've heard from witnesses who have told us about the shortcomings in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I've asked a number of questions about it. Our witnesses were very interesting.
However, I share Ms. Collins's point of view. She would have liked to have answers from departmental witnesses, knowing what happened with Volkswagen.
I find it excessive to blame the government or members of the Liberal Party. I may be naive, but I don't think it was intentional. However, we need to point out that there is some form of disappointment to ensure that we are taken seriously next time.
In the motion proposed earlier by Ms. Collins, I would strike out the part of the motion that specifically mentions government responsibility.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You want to propose an amendment to Ms. Collins's motion. Is that correct?
6:45 p.m.
NDP
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Just a moment, please, Ms. Collins.
Ms. Collins, perhaps you would do me a favour and send your motion to my P9 address. Then we'll have something to work with. We can then pinpoint the words that Madam Pauzé wants to change and have a debate on the amendment to the motion. We would start that debate with Mr. Schiefke.
Perhaps you can send me your motion now. You already read it once, and I think you already have it written down somewhere. If you can send that to my P9, I should get that at any moment.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I am emailing it to your P9 right now.
I would suggest that maybe we amend it to what Madam Pauzé was suggesting.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Oh, here it is: That the subcommittee report to the House that it is disappointed and frustrated with the Liberal members' decision....
We changed that to “the Liberal government”, right?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's what Madam Pauzé wants to do.
So it ends: the Liberal government decision to send witnesses that are not aligned with the motion on Volkswagen’s CEPA compliance, agreed upon by the committee.
This would be a friendly amendment, I guess.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, potentially we could amend the words after “disappointed and frustrated” to read “that the committee was sent witnesses that are not aligned”. That way, it removes any—
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're not, then, even mentioning the government.
First of all, Madam Pauzé has an amendment.
Are you withdrawing your amendment, Madam Pauzé?
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I think Ms. Collins has understood the meaning of my amendment. I wouldn't talk about the government. Instead, the amendment would speak to the fact that it's the committee that is disappointed and frustrated that some witnesses didn't fit the motion on Volkswagen's compliance.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Pauzé and Ms. Collins are on the same wavelength on this. As I understand it, Ms. Collins accepts Ms. Pauzé's proposal. It's a friendly amendment, which Ms. Collins accepts.
Ms. Collins, can I ask you to send me the final version of your motion?
We'll be able to continue debate on the wording that Ms. Collins is going to send me and which takes into account Ms. Pauzé's comments.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
We would be debating the amendment. There's no such thing as a friendly—