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.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I don't think you liked the original motion, either.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
No, I didn't. That's true.
I'm also looking at time and wondering whether we have resources to continue with this. I know there are other committee meetings happening tonight. We called time at 6:45, and we're well past that now.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Let's leave it to the chair and the clerk to decide on resources.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. This is how I'm told we should proceed.
Ms. Collins sent me the motion with the friendly amendment of Madam Pauzé. The motion reads 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 CEPA compliance agreed upon by the committee
—meaning the original motion agreed upon by the committee.
I have Mr. Schiefke.
This is what we're debating. We're debating this motion.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
On a point of order, could you reread that motion?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I would be happy to.
It is:
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 CEPA compliance
—and then it should say, I think—
as agreed upon by the committee
—or just
with the motion on Volkswagen CEPA compliance.
We don't need “as agreed upon by the committee”, because obviously we agreed upon the motion for the study.
Is it okay to just take out “as agreed upon by the committee”? I think it's a bit clearer.
It would read:
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 intent of the motion on Volkswagen CEPA compliance.
Does that make sense, Ms. Collins?
Okay. I see the thumbs up.
Just let me write this down.
It is:
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 intention of the motion on Volkswagen CEPA compliance.
Now, this is what we're debating.
Mr. Schiefke has the floor.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Chair, could you please repeat the motion in French for the benefit of the francophone members of our committee?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Of course. I'll do my best, but I'm not an interpreter.
The motion proposes that the committee report to the House that it is disappointed and frustrated, that it is somewhat frustrated that witnesses were sent to the committee who did not comply with the intent of the motion on…
How do you say “compliance” in French? Can you help me, Ms. Pauzé?
In any case, the motion talks about what I'd call Volkswagen's adherence to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Something like that.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, you're right. Excuse me. That's more or less what the motion in English means.
Mr. Schiefke, you have the floor.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's incredible that we're actually, first of all, debating a motion that had originally in some way implied that Liberal members or the Liberal government somehow decided that we were going to have witnesses who were not able to answer questions.
I personally find that offensive, because I worked with the honourable NDP member in trying to figure out what motion we were going to put forward to this committee to study. We both agreed on the equal importance of looking into Volkswagen as well as looking at how we can strengthen the enforcement mechanisms in CEPA.
To then somehow think that I or any other Liberal member of this committee would invite only witnesses who are unable to answer our questions makes absolutely no sense.
I am working diligently, as are many others, on looking at how we can strengthen CEPA. I want to ensure, in the best interests of all Canadians, that I get the best possible information available to me in order to look into how best to do that.
I'm very happy, at least, that
our colleague from the Bloc Québécois said it was unfair to suggest that people from the government would intentionally have invited witnesses who are unable to answer questions here tonight. This is a waste of everyone's time. So, I thank our colleague from the Bloc Québécois very much for moving this amendment.
Since we're at that point, I would add another amendment to Ms. Collins' motion to say that members of the committee had the opportunity to check, in advance, which witnesses would be present at that meeting and that they had the opportunity to say that there was a problem with the selection of those witnesses because they felt they would be unable to answer the questions. After that, the rest of Ms. Collins' motion would follow.
It's incredible that, as my honourable colleague, Mr. Baker, had said, having had the time to review who was actually going to be at this meeting as a witness, and having had a chance in advance to say, “You know what, I don't think these people are going to be qualified to answer these questions”, to then come to committee and say that....Right from the beginning, Ms. Collins pointed out....Why wait until the meeting itself to have us waste an hour and a half of everybody's time, including the witnesses who came, and then have the audacity to complain to the House of Commons that we did not get the witnesses we deserved to respond to the questions we were going to ask?
We all knew who these witnesses would be, number one. If anybody had an issue with that, we had ample time in advance to put forward any kind of objection, but that wasn't done. Instead, we are wasting a considerable amount of this committee's time, which we all agree is incredibly limited given our time slot, and the fact that votes always happen that push into our time. We have incredibly important business to get to, but now we're going to go ahead and waste the time of the House of Commons. This is what we've come to.
From the beginning, I have been incredibly proud of the work we've done on this committee. I feel we have done a very good job of keeping politics on the outside of this committee, and trying to do good by Canadians by ensuring we work together to select the best possible motions, which have been really great motions so far. We have been working together to make sure that whatever reports are sent back to the House of Commons are informative, and allow us, as elected representatives, to make the best possible decisions.
But tonight is a low point for the committee, and politics has reared its ugly head. That was evident with the implication by the NDP member that in some way Liberal members came forward, and purposefully put selected witnesses who could not answer questions.
That is simply unacceptable.
It's unfortunate that she decided to put that motion forward, because it's insulting to all of us members on the government side who want to do the good work of Canadians in getting things done on this committee.
However, the motion has been put forward, and with that, I'm going to move a subamendment, that the committee communicate to the government....
Mr. Chair, unfortunately I have to deal with a family situation here, so I pass my time to whoever is next in line.
7 p.m.
Liberal
7 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to pick up from my colleague Mr. Schiefke. If we're already expressing disappointment, as my colleague Mr. Albas said earlier, if we're going to vent, then let's vent.
I really feel it's not just that it's disappointing in terms of how the committee has gotten to this point this evening, but all of us have a responsibility, in the witness lists that come forward, in working together in determining who best to fit the study. That has all been done and that work was passed on to the clerk. To even be having this debate is really insulting to the clerk and the work that's done here.
The clerk was very forthcoming in the names that she provided and the work plan that we've all looked at. All the witness names were there. Everything was very transparent and open for all of us to consider ahead of time. I don't include myself in that because I came late to this study, but all of you were here. You knew who was coming forward and you knew how you wanted to frame this study, which is something that Canadians really want to know about. They really want to know how we're going to improve CEPA for the future. That's really the crux of this. To rehash and re-evaluate what was and not provide Canadians and my constituents with a road map of how we ensure enforcement for the future is an absolute waste of time of being here, highly disappointing and a waste of time of the House. We have critical work to do here.
I asked to be on this committee. I felt very fortunate to be able to join this committee. I am profoundly disappointed that this is the level we've gotten to. I've been a member of Parliament and busy in my work here in this committee and other committees for barely over three months, and we can't seem to move forward and work with the witnesses we have, to garner the information that Canadians want to have in terms of how we are going to make sure they are well served in protecting the environment of our country in the future.
We're well past time. I'm sure all of us are tired and would like to go on. There is other important committee business that needs to be done. In terms of putting a motion such as this forward, I'm embarrassed that we're questioning this to the clerk. I'm profoundly disappointed.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Just to let you know, there is a liaison committee meeting coming up, which the chairs have to be at, but I suppose that's my problem.
Mr. Longfield.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think we're getting to the point of repetition and I would move that the debate be now adjourned.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. I think that means there's no debate on that and we would go to a roll call vote.
Madam Clerk, is that correct?
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Please go ahead and ask the members how they feel about that.
Mr. Longfield is proposing that we adjourn. We're not voting on the motion of Ms. Collins, as amended by Madame Pauzé; we are voting on whether we adjourn at this point.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order, for clarification, just so I'm aware of the process.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
If we adjourn now, is this picked up at the next committee? I'm confused as to why we're voting on adjournment instead of just voting on the motion itself and then adjourning.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're voting on adjournment because Mr. Longfield is asking that we do that.
7:05 p.m.
The Clerk
My understanding is that we are voting to adjourn debate, not adjourn the meeting. Is that correct?
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
