Industry Committee on April 19th, 2023

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Ms. McClenaghan, are you aware that Volkswagen was charged with 60 counts of breaching the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

I have a vague awareness of that, just from the media. I was not involved in that case.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Under those charges, Volkswagen essentially lied to the Government of Canada about the emissions their cars were producing. They installed what are called defeat devices in approximately 130,000 diesel vehicles imported into Canada.

The Government of Canada has now embarked on a new agreement with Volkswagen, despite an order from this committee and the Parliament of Canada. The Department of Industry is in breach of that parliamentary order to provide us with a copy of that contract. Essentially, they lied to this committee that they would do so. We are now without information about how much money the Government of Canada has given Volkswagen.

That said, are you aware of any other car company that has breached the Environmental Protection Act in Canada?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

No, I'm not in a position to comment on that for this committee. It's not something I looked into to prepare for today.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Do you think it's ironic that one of the only companies, if not the only company, in the history of Canada to lie to Canadians about emissions standards within the last seven years is going to receive billions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers to protect the environment after they were fined $190 million for breaching Canadian laws in an unprecedented fashion—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I have a point of order.

We passed the motion on Monday, and we agreed on a week's timeline.

Second, through you, I want to ask Mr. Vis about the relevance of this line of questioning, because the study is on electronics, metals and plastics recycling. I think his line of questioning is off topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'll let Mr. Vis pursue his line of questioning. However, I will note to Mr. Vis that to pretend that the government has lied when all parties agreed two days ago to ask for these documents, I think is a little rich.

I'll let you pursue with your—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

No, I wasn't referring to that motion. I was referring to the order put forward by the committee the first time, Mr. Chair. That order still stands. We didn't negate that order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm confident that in due time the documents will be produced, as the committee has requested no later than two days ago, but I take your point of order, Mr. Gaheer.

Mr. Vis, I'll let you pursue.... I think we're fairly liberal in how we interpret the text of this motion, so you can pursue your line of questioning.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'll just respond to the point of order before I go back to my questions. The point is that it is rich that the Government of Canada charged Volkswagen with 60 breaches of breaking the law and $190 million, and now they're giving them billions of dollars to fight climate change when they were criminally prosecuted under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

As it relates to this study and to Mr. Gaheer's point of order, what is important to note, Mr. Chair, is that if we are going to operate in a circular economy, if we are going to develop critical minerals and if we are going to put the trust of Canadian taxpayers and their dollars into a company with a horrible environmental record, we have to be asking the tough questions. I've owned a Volkswagen car. I love driving them. It's a great product, but they broke the law in a very serious way. The Americans charged them billions of dollars, Mr. Chair.

Let me go back to my questioning. I thank you for your judicious interpretation of the Standing Orders, but I know I'm in line with them in my line of questioning.

Mr. Gaheer, I know you have a job to do, but I have a job to do, too, which is to stand up for Canadians and for making sure that taxpayer dollars are used effectively.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Vis, you've asked me to tell you the two-minute-and-30 mark, and you've reached it. That is my job here.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Généreux, I'll recognize you for the rest of the time.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Seidel, you mentioned municipalities in Alberta earlier. I was a mayor in the past and, in the municipality where I was mayor, we set up what we in Quebec call brown bins for organic waste. You said that municipalities could do a great deal more than what they are currently doing, and you're entirely right.

What initiatives could you lead, or what measures should the federal government implement with municipalities, especially from coast to coast in Canada?

[Dr. Christina Seidel]

It's a very fair question on why municipalities can play such a key role in circular economy. The circular economy landscape is changing very quickly. One thing about municipalities is that not only do a lot of things happen at that level related to policy and even economic development, but also, as a government, they are quite nimble, especially compared to.... Not that higher levels of government are less nimble, but they really are. If you want things to happen quickly and you want things to move forward, municipalities are a good way to drive policy.

In our program, we brought together a lot of different departments, because one thing the circular economy does is to embrace a lot more than just the environment department. It embraces other departments as well. Things like procurement and energy all come together under a circular economy framework. Municipalities are one of the levels that can bring those departments together to look at ways to build circularity within that community.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

A community located in northern Quebec, in the Saint-Jérôme area, decided to tax cardboard cups and various disposable plastic items. The community collected $75,000 thanks to that tax. It's reinvesting the money into community initiatives to improve their environment locally.

Do you think that the federal government's carbon tax, which is partly redistributed to the public, should be cancelled? Should the government give municipalities the opportunity to do more locally instead? Specifically, it could more legitimately tax initiatives that municipalities undertake in their own communities. Do you think the idea is worthwhile?

[Dr. Christina Seidel]

That's a great comment. I think it would be a very positive use of carbon funds, for sure, to put them back into communities to actually make a difference at the local level. I would certainly say that it probably would be positive but also one of the most effective ways of making change.

I will comment on the plastics too. That's a good example with regard to municipalities. This is happening across the country now, because Environment Canada, under CEPA, has made these single-use plastics regulations. What's happening now is that municipalities are starting to build on that and create their own local bylaws. That probably wouldn't have happened if it had not been for the federal government leading the charge on zero plastics. It's a good example of how different levels of government can work together to make a difference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for their testimony to the committee so far.

Ms. Johnston-Billings, Bill C-34 has been referred to this committee in terms of how it will strengthen the ICA. Could you elaborate on how Bill C-34 and the ICA will support you in preventing the hostile takeover by Glencore?

[Amber Johnston-Billings]

At this point, our shareholder vote is on April 26, which is next Wednesday. That is a proposal for us to separate into two world-class companies that would both be headquartered in Canada. At the moment, it's in shareholders' hands as to whether that vote will go through. Obviously, we have the protection of our A-class shareholders, but we'll see how that vote goes next Wednesday.

To your question on Bill C-34, it's unlikely that we will see that updated in time, obviously, to play a role in this particular situation. At the same time, that's not what we're directly asking for, as I mentioned previously. We are in a position where we are highlighting to the government the issues in this potentially foreign takeover by a company that has a terrible track record in human rights, labour abuse and corruption. We would expect that the Government of Canada would look very closely at approving that transaction.

If it were to go ahead.... At the moment, we believe it will not. It has been unanimously voted down by our board on two occasions. At the moment, all of our defences are up in terms of this not happening, but if it were successful and it went through to a regulatory review and there were changes, that review could happen earlier. If that review did not allow those powers to change, then obviously it would still need to go through a fairly extensive review in Canada under the ICA.

Thanks.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Let's say in a hypothetical world Bill C-34 was currently enacted. Would you like to comment on how it could potentially help in this current situation with Glencore?

[Amber Johnston-Billings]

I don't think I can comment on that, but thank you for the question.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

No, definitely.

I also wanted to ask about your critical minerals strategy. Critical minerals are obviously important in electrical vehicle batteries, energy information and technology, and defence applications. Do you have any comments on the initiatives Canada has put in place specifically to reuse critical minerals and e-waste?

[Amber Johnston-Billings]

I might pass that question to Thompson Hickey, who leads the Trail smelter. I'll comment on the first part of the question around the Government of Canada.

I would just like to say that the budget was fantastic in terms of providing a whole number of different areas that will help us develop critical minerals, including the recycling piece but also the extraction and processing. There are a number of tax incentives in there that will be very helpful in enabling us to develop, process and explore for more critical minerals.

Thompson, I'll pass it to you for the second part of the question with regard to how we can develop recycling facilities and use federal government support to recycle more EVs.

[Thompson Hickey]

I would echo Amber's comments on the framework that Canada is proposing around critical minerals. It really gives impetus to companies like ours to push forward.

As I mentioned, at Teck we already produce about seven of the 31 critical minerals. In terms of investing further to broaden that suite of critical minerals, it is doable from a technical perspective. There are sometimes some challenges from an economic perspective around the circular economy. Any support that the federal government, through the various ministries, could offer to move this forward, certainly on some of the nascent businesses that are developing around the recycling of EV batteries.... This is a very new and developing industry, and it's not really clear where things are tracking, so anything around frameworks would help on the critical minerals.

We appreciate the support that the government has tabled so far.