Environment Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay.

Thinking back to the situation with VW, you understand the amount of work and things that were done in your department to get to the bottom of the situation with VW. Do you folks who work in that area consider that the amounts VW had to pay in Canada were too low, too high, or just about right? What are your thoughts?

[Stéphane Couroux]

That's something I cannot comment on. My role is to conduct the required testing to find out whether there are cases, with vehicles and engines, of non-compliance.

My team administers six vehicle and engine emission regulations that look after the emissions of pretty much all on-road vehicles and off-road vehicles that are operated on the road. We select test specimens every year, based on our risk analysis. We conduct the testing, and if there's evidence that these vehicles are non-compliant, we turn them over to enforcement, who work with the prosecution and can talk more about the way the follow-up work happens.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm more curious about the coffee room talk among the folks who work in your area. What do they think of the way this turned out?

[Stéphane Couroux]

Obviously, that's something we don't discuss.

Our role is limited to obtaining the proper test specimen and conducting the testing. Then we basically follow through with those that are non-compliant by providing those files to our colleagues in enforcement to bring them forward.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Pelletier, do you expect that Canadians would have more confidence in enforcement of CEPA when big companies like Volkswagen get essentially a slap on the wrist, compared to other jurisdictions like the U.S.A. and Germany? Why should Canadians have confidence in the changes you've made?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 25 seconds, please.

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

I believe that Canadians do have confidence. This has been the largest fine in our history. We're setting a baseline now for the companies out there. We're setting the tone. The message was very clear. It is a historic fine and the investigation was well conducted. With all the collaboration we've had within our department, Canadians can be proud of this investigation and the results.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pelletier.

Mr. Saini, the floor is yours.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being patient and for being here today.

I'm going to start off with a general question because, as you know, we're going to be reviewing CEPA shortly. What do you think some of the shortfalls are to the act? How would you like to see them addressed in improved enforcement?

This can be for anybody.

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

Donald, go ahead.

[Donald Walker]

As the enforcement branch, we work closely with our colleagues in the environmental protection branch, who are responsible for developing regulations and working on any legislative changes. Our goal there is to make sure that any envisioned changes are workable from an enforcement perspective, that at least the resources required with respect to enforcement are considered, and that we have the appropriate tools and training to make sure that our officers are out there and able to enforce the law.

However, our role here is to enforce the law as written. Where we do identify gaps—and I am not sure that is something we would necessarily speak about—we do identify them to our colleagues within ECCC, so they can be addressed as quickly as possible and enforcement can continue.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The next question I have is about the damages fund. As you know, the damages fund allows for fines levied under CEPA to be used to restore the environment.

Currently, it's the court that directs those funds to be used to repair the specific damage that the fines were levied for. Do you think this is the proper way? Should that decision be made somewhere else in the department?

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

The environmental damage fund works very well. The public prosecutor makes a recommendation, but it is still through the courts that these recommendations are made. The decisions are made by the courts and they're working very well.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay, that's good to hear.

Much of the conversation around enforcement is about what to do after an infraction has been committed. At that point, it's sometimes too late to prevent the environmental damage from happening in the first place.

What measures do you think could be taken to help enforce CEPA before there is an infraction and before the damage is done?

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

We have a compliance promotion program within the department that works very well in tandem with the enforcement officers. This is the prevention side of the equation, where that education part with the regulatees is happening. That is where you want to prevent an environmental incident from happening.

We do have tools to work with the regulatees. We have directives. There are some tickets and some AMPs. There are smaller enforcement abilities that we can put in place that trigger the compliance of the regulatee, rather than going into a full-fledged investigation.

We do have tools to be able to do the prevention side of it within the department.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You mentioned AMPs in your opening remarks and you've mentioned AMPs now.

Is there any thought being given to expanding the AMPs—raising those levels or expanding the scope—as an alternative to prosecution for non-compliance or for addressing non-compliance?

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

Donald, would you like to answer that one?

[Donald Walker]

Sure.

I think that's really well framed in terms of the goal of the enforcement program, which is to address non-compliance and reduce non-compliance. Administrative monetary penalties certainly are one tool that's been available to officers since 2017. What you'll see is that with the implementation of the administrative monetary penalty system, there has been a reduction in other types of enforcement activities. It's a more straightforward means to address non-compliance in a reasonable time frame.

Officers also have the opportunity to issue written warnings, if they feel that the situation merits it, as well as environmental protection compliance orders. Other measures that are short of prosecution still take steps to actively address the non-compliance and reduce or mitigate or limit damage to the environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll come back to a testimony by Mark Winfield, who worked to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. When he appeared in 2016, he said that some regulations appeared to target sectors with significant pollution potential, but that there was little enforcement activity.

Do you have an order of priority for your inspection efforts?

[Anne-Marie Pelletier]

Yes, we do have one. It's actually the exercise we've been doing for years in terms of risk assessment. I'm going to ask Mr. Enns to talk to you in detail about how we prioritize the files and the planning around that process.

[Michael Enns]

There are a couple of issues here. In terms of the priorities we set, we absolutely take a look at the entirety of our mandate to judge the risk on the basis of the harm that's done and the likelihood of those things happening.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but there's no interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll stop the clock for a moment.

Is the issue resolved now?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Enns needs to say something.