Environment Committee on June 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I may interrupt, that was because we hadn't proposed this in camera solution.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I think that goes to the point. We tried to be reasonable at the last meeting. This is what I'm driving at in terms of what we were going to have to do on Tuesday. If you'll allow me, sir, I think it shows that that meeting, in and of itself, was needed, because the committee did have to pass, with opposition support of all members, a motion to have the deputy minister realize the gravity of the situation and what we are demanding of him in terms of the production of the documents.

Without that meeting, without that motion passing at that meeting, we would not be even having this discussion. We would have just—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, good for us.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Well, it is.

Again, that is our obligation as parliamentarians, and I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the colleagues at this side of the table. They were willing to go to bat for taxpayer dollars and ask tough questions of big companies about where $8 billion went, and a lot of questions about whether or not emissions are going to be reduced by it. It's imperative for all parliamentarians—it doesn't really matter what your stripe is, at this point—to know where a bunch of money went and whether or not it's actually going to reduce emissions. I'm of the view that those attempts were, more or less, a breach of parliamentary privilege, but I don't want to go down that path. I think the department—in my hopes that you are correct—is willing to share the documents with us.

The motion we passed at the last meeting was fairly explicit in having two sections.

One was to get unredacted documents three days ahead of the meeting. We are willing to be flexible, as mentioned earlier, and have this meeting take place in the fall. I appreciate your willingness, Mr. Chair, to have those documents be available to members of Parliament and their staff whenever they become available, whether that's in July or August, but ahead of that September meeting. I appreciate that.

There was also a requirement that they produce a redacted version of those documents, because, as colleagues across the way are concerned about, we might inadvertently say something in a public meeting. I think that is a fair concern. That's why we were very explicit in the wording of our motion. We could have both of them side by side, so we could see what is redacted and what is not redacted. We were also accepting of the parliamentary secretary's amendments to that motion, which add the in camera part to respect those very specific concerns.

Now, the deputy minister, in his letter, tried to give a comparison to what the industry committee did, in the model of how they were kind of, sort of able to view the electric vehicle battery contracts in a very similar type of situation. I think, again, recognizing that this will take time, we are willing to go along with that. However, the word he used in that letter was “precedent”. That's not the way this works. What the industry committee decides to do is completely separate from what this committee decides to do. Going back to those Speaker rulings I mentioned previously, any committee has the authority, the prerogative, the right and the desire to see transparency from this government. Frankly, it should be demanded.

All this to say, to answer your original question—and I apologize for the length—I think it is important that Canadians can see the difficulties we are having not only in viewing these contracts but also in having a full understanding of what the results of these contracts will be. Unless we are given the opportunity to view them and ask the deputy minister and his staff very pointed questions, we are not doing our job.

I think the compromise is to reschedule the meeting and have a two-hour meeting, as mentioned, in September.

I respect that Ms. Pauzé has been long awaiting the study on sustainable finance. I don't want to take away from that. I understand she would be concerned about that. I would be willing to offer that we add, within the first week, a third meeting where we can take a good, hard look at this and directly ask the deputy minister and his staff questions, rather than take away a meeting from the Bloc Québécois' study on sustainable finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Leslie, I was consulting the clerk. What are you proposing?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It's a few things. I will get to the conclusion.

The first one is that, once we are back—as you suggested—we not take away from Ms. Pauzé's study, which was passed a long time ago. We add a third meeting for two hours, as per the motion, with Deputy Minister Simon Kennedy and officials, where we reject the idea he proposed about us taking on the specific model the industry committee used for the EV documents. We are our own committee. We are fully within our prerogative to take our own approach, as per the motion we passed.

I think it's clear from the law clerk's letter this morning that it is our responsibility to not divulge information. Again, going back to what we did in camera on the motion, I think it's entirely reasonable. It behooves any parliamentarian, as our responsibility, to not make that mistake, particularly at a time when reports about election interference are running rampant and people are making mistakes. I think we're all cognizant of that. It's entirely reasonable to put that onus back on us.

However, we were very specific in the wording of the motion we passed during the emergency meeting. I think it struck the right balance, one that upholds our rights and privileges as members of Parliament and takes into account the constraints of official bilingualism the deputy minister outlined.

To your question about what we do on Tuesday, the minister is not appearing, which is disappointing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can I get agreement from the committee to have a third meeting when we get back in September, assuming we get the resources and we can do it?

Are we in agreement that in the first week when we get back, instead of two meetings, we have a third meeting to deal with this, so we don't take anything away from whatever else we're doing at that point? We don't know exactly what we'll be doing in that first week, but is everyone okay with having a third meeting?

This is a question to the committee.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I just want to say that I respect and appreciate everything that the member opposite is saying, particularly when he emphasized that I'm a rural member. I like it when he reminds Canadians that Milton is a rural riding.

I have confidence in your and the vice-chair's ability to manage these types of things. We could do a really good job. I think we're going to come back and have meetings on this. There's no controversy here. We can have a meeting, or we can have two meetings, or we can even have three. I really want to get to the point of Madame Pauzé's study, but I don't think we have an issue here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, good, that's settled.

What was your second point, about Tuesday?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

What I think would be helpful heading into the summer—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry.

Mr. Longfield, do you want to say something about this?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I wanted to give some direction for Tuesday, since it is coming. Before the end of this meeting, I would like to be able to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's what we're on now.

Okay, can we talk about Tuesday? Then we can go to Mr. Longfield.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm more than happy to talk about Tuesday. What I think we should do, at least for one of the two hours, given that the minister is refusing to come to the meeting on the main estimates, is bring in the officials and ask them questions on the main estimates as we would anyway.

We have a second hour available, and I think it would be wise for us, heading into this break—

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm sorry, but it is my first time visiting this committee. Is there not a subcommittee on this committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're trying to sort this out, because we can't realistically have a subcommittee meeting between now and Tuesday. I think we can come to a pretty good agreement.

Mr. Leslie, what's your suggestion for the second hour? You want the officials for the first hour.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Whether it's the first or the second hour—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think there's probably a broad agreement on that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Am I on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, you are.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay. I have some suggestions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm trying to get a consensus before 7:07 p.m.

Is everyone okay with having the officials come in for the first hour?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Let's finish the other hour, and then we can talk about it together.