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.
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Risk Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
As I talked about earlier, the risk-based approach to setting priorities is really at the centre of answering your question. We look at the entirety of our mandate. That includes such regulations as the environmental emergencies regulations, which require organizations to have a plan in place to prevent the big-scale catastrophes you mentioned, as well as the entirety of our other mandate. We combine that with proactive sampling of various parts of the country. We do targeted inspections on the basis of the risk work and cast a net through random inspections to make sure we're continually keeping our dataset relevant. We're continually focusing on where we can do the most good in terms of risk reduction.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
To ensure that inspectors and enforcement officers have the proper tools to deter offenders, wouldn't it be necessary to define new penalty mechanisms in the legislation to facilitate compliance?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Branch, Department of the Environment
The act needs to be revised, which will allow us to thoroughly study the elements that should be added to it. We'll then be able to take a second look at it.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
Following up on the question I asked Mr. Walker, I guess what I heard from you was that it was to best of your knowledge. It sounds like you don't have direct knowledge of what kinds of recommendations were put forward at that time, or who might have had input into it.
Maybe I'll move to Mr. Enns on the same question.
Mr. Chair, I want to confirm that we'll have another round of questioning after this.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
My question is on those two pieces, the irregularity and the length of time, especially in comparison to the U.S. prosecution, and then also the proportionality of the Canadian fine, which to me seems kind of embarrassing. This is the largest one we ever got, and it is a fraction; it is such a small portion of what the U.S. was able to get. I just wanted to get your first-hand account.
5:35 p.m.
Director General, Risk Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
Sure. On the proportionality of the offence, I think it's important to note that penalties in Canada are based on precedent in Canada and not in any other country. On that basis, we're pleased that it was more than 25 times the size of any previous penalty. To our way of thinking, that showed the seriousness of the offence and the seriousness with which the court took it.
That's based on Canadian precedent and, as you know, the United States has a different system and it includes different elements in the offence than are included just for what was the fine under CEPA, which you're talking about and was $196.5 million. There were a number of elements to the U.S. fine that make it very different.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I guess they did bundle these fines differently. The decisions made around how to bundle them were quite different, which resulted in a lower fine and just the fact that....
I'm just curious. Do you have any direct experience around the recommendations that the enforcement officials made to the Crown prosecutor and on the rationale behind those penalties? Would you have any kind of first-hand knowledge on any input that the minister's office might have had on the recommendations for Volkswagen or any influence the Prime Minister's Office might have had?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We are well over time now. Maybe Mr. Albas would be gracious enough to let Mr. Enns answer that, but he might have his own questions.
We will go to Mr. Albas.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Please, if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Chair, let that happen.
5:35 p.m.
Director General, Risk Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
In terms of the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office, I can tell you that in my experience throughout the case there was no discussion with the minister's office or the Prime Minister's Office about the case itself in terms of what we would put forward to prosecutors and so forth. We did not get guidance directly from the minister's office or the Prime Minister's Office at any point that I'm aware of.
In terms of the length of the investigation, which you also referenced, we needed to establish that an offence took place in Canada, which required an in-depth investigation that had to look at all of the elements. As the presiding judge noted, what took place in the United States was very different in terms of the offences that were pursued, and the admission of guilt by Volkswagen in the United States did not carry any specific weight in terms of a finding of guilt or innocence in Canada. Certainly, everyone was aware of it and considered it, but there was no rubber-stamping of U.S. decisions in Canadian courts.
We needed to conduct our own investigation. We needed to establish the facts that were both the offence in Canada and the relationship with the United States in terms of the vehicles that were tested there and then brought into Canada, as well as the international scene, which took into account Volkswagen the international organization and its relationship with its Canadian and U.S. counterparts.
It's important to us to do a comprehensive investigation, and that is what we put forward in our report to Crown counsel, which is standard practice for any law enforcement organization. It detailed the offence in Canada. It detailed the severity of the crimes. Then the Public Prosecution Service of Canada took that information and pursued the best possible outcome according to what they believed was in the public interest.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Just on that point then, can you confirm this to me? There is something called “Crown discretion” and, of course, there are only so many resources that are available at any one time. You've just said they made the decision that they felt was in the public interest of what they could pursue. Can you answer as to whether or not the Public Prosecution Service had enough resources to be able to take the evidence and the recommendations you handed over and prosecute a fair case?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Risk Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
I'm not in any position to comment on the resources or capacity of the Public Prosecution Service.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Well, it seems to me, sir, that you have lots to say about the risk management. You've said lots about your own capacity and how there are resources, but when it actually comes time to hold the laws—and we are a rule-of-law country—you, and it sounds like probably everyone else, cannot comment on a critical area. Is that correct?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Risk Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
What we can comment on is the enforcement of CEPA, and we can comment on the investigation that we conducted and the report to Crown counsel that we issued.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
But you cannot comment one iota about the resourcing of the Public Prosecution Service. Who would be able to do that?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Risk Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
I don't have a name in mind, but someone who works for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada would be where I'd start.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
But they're not here today.
By the way, who in your department suggested that you and Ms. Pelletier and everyone else come? Who made that decision?