Environment Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Colleagues, before we begin debate on the motion, I have a couple of news items.

As I understand it, the five witnesses are available during the week of June 3, but not necessarily on the same day. Two of them are available on June 4, and three of them are available on June 6. I should add that they will be testifying by videoconference. It is up to the committee to decide if that is acceptable.

In short, what I'm trying to say, Mr. Boulerice, is that the motion may be moot, because these people have already agreed to come and testify before the committee. That said, it may take place over two meetings.

I wanted to let the committee know before we get into debate.

Mr. Deltell, you now have the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

We agree on them testifying; it’s what we want.

The question I want to ask is more technical and has to do with the translation.

In the French version of the motion read by Mr. Boulerice, it’s written that “le Comité convoque les personnes suivantes”. In the English version, it reads: “the committee summons”. The words “summons” and “convoque” don’t mean the same thing, I think.

I don’t want to call myself a translator, but I’m thinking out loud. Can we change “May 23, 2024” to “by June 6, 2024”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What did you say?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think Mr. van Koeverden can help me understand the meaning of the English version. In the English version, it reads “the committee summons”. That means if the person doesn’t show up, the RCMP will show up at their place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don’t know if that’s what it does for….

Mr. van Koeverden, can you enlighten us on the matter?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I think we should actually use the French and translate the correct word, because I don't think we used our summoning power. Summoning is something different.

If they refused and we said that we absolutely need them here, then we could have summoned them, but that's not what we did. I think the French is correct and we should amend the English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Indeed, the French translation of “summons” is “convoquer”.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Does that mean the RCMP will go to them if they don’t show up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unless I’m mistaken—it seems to me we’ve already done this—there is a second step.

If these people tell us they won’t come and testify, we will have to start thinking about measures to take, but that’s not currently the case. The RCMP won’t go to them, no.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

To avoid any issues, I’m ready to change the wording to “called on to appear”, “called on to testify” or “invited to appear”. I have no problem with using terms that aren’t as loaded, that weigh less heavily. I was not aware of all the information, and I was not aware that they were ready to appear before the committee. If we decide to change the date and write “by June 6”, I’m fine with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The motion proposes that witnesses be invited to appear by May 23.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It reads: “be invited to appear on Thursday, May 23”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We could indeed make the amendment.

Do you agree in principle that witnesses appear separately, meaning there will be one group of two and one group of three?

I see you nodding yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Imperial Oil Ltd. and Enbridge Inc. are ready to appear for an hour on June 4, whereas Suncor Energy Inc., Cenovus Energy Inc. and Shell are ready to appear for an hour on June 6.

Does that work for everyone?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes, we have a total of two hours as well as all the people we wanted to have appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do we really need to pass a motion, then?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I prefer that the committee pass a motion properly, just in case there’s any unpleasant surprises over the coming days or weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are we okay with summoning them, even though they've agreed to come?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Just to be sure, it's a serious invitation, but the RCMP will not go there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There's never been a question of the RCMP.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

With the big hat and everything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If we pass this motion, we are summoning these five CEOs when, in fact, they've agreed to come anyway. It seems to me to be a little disingenuous to summon them.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, if you’re not comfortable with the term “summons” in English, we can replace it with a translation of “invite à comparaître”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That’s where I was coming from.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I don’t see any problem with the change, but I would still like the motion to pass officially.