Environment Committee on May 4th, 2023

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Actually, I'm not, but I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

But I can go to Mr. Lake now.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it's a very strange circumstance that we find ourselves going clause by clause. It's called clause by clause for a reason. We typically go clause by clause as a committee, especially on legislation where, it is fair to say in this case, there are different points of view depending on perspectives across the country. It would be a very important part of the parliamentary process to go clause by clause. It's highly unusual to do it. I've never seen a report that would have as divided or as wide a range of views across the country on it. I've never seen a report just pass through without amendment. I've never seen that happen before.

We're just debating right now the process on a motion put forward by the NDP, and members from the Liberals and Bloc have indicated they're going to support it. First of all, I find it completely unacceptable that I don't have the opportunity on behalf of my constituents in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, on an issue which everybody in this room could understand would be important to them, to even talk about the individual clauses of a report. I've never been a part of a process in my 17 years as a member of Parliament on something that would have such a wide range of views. You see things that are unanimous where there's unanimous approval of something, maybe, but not on something like this.

It sounds like this is where the committee is going. It sounds like members from the Liberal government, the NDP and the Bloc are united on moving this forward without any possibility to have amendments.

Mr. Chair, let me put on the record—and I'm glad we're in public for this so Canadians can see this process unfolding—that I am very concerned about the precedent this sets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before we go to Mr. Ehsassi, I would say that the report contains all points of view on this. We're describing what different witnesses said, and sometimes—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

No, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm not finished.

Sometimes you'll have one view and right beneath it an opposing view.

What's also very important to keep in mind is that the recommendations are where we state our viewpoint as a committee, and, if not everybody is in agreement with the recommendations that the majority of the members agree with, they can produce a minority report so everyone's voices will be heard.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

You've entered into debate as a chair with me, fairly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I'm just describing what's happening.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

It's a very odd circumstance that we're having a public conversation, and you've been put in a very difficult position, I understand. Just to be clear, because of your comments, the analysts who we have working for us—because this is an open door to a process that usually happens in camera—do phenomenal work writing a draft report, but at the end of the day, members of Parliament own that report and put it forward. I don't want to leave anybody with the mistaken notion that it would be unusual to discuss each clause and move clause by clause. That is what's normal. What's normal is for us to go through and take a look at each clause of a report.

What's happening right now is very unusual, especially for a report like this. I want to make sure it's very clear that this very unusual.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, can I make a point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If it's a point of order.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I listened very intently to Mr. Lake's remarks, and that may well be his view, but he did refer to this as going clause by clause, and he called it legislation. I would like, for the benefit of the public who may be watching, to clarify that this is not clause-by-clause review of legislation. This is paragraph-by-paragraph review of a parliamentary report, a report that has already undergone seven meetings' worth of review in camera.

I appreciate the points he's making, and I think those are fair points to make in this meeting. I would just ask for some clarity around—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Ehsassi now.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

The member brought up a point of order, and I'm going to weigh in on the point of order.

If we're going to have the conversation, I'll withdraw the contentious language “clause by clause” and say “paragraph by paragraph”. Whatever the case is, it is highly unusual—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe they do understand that this is a report and that it's paragraph by paragraph.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Ehsassi now, please.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank you for your patience and your perseverance. This is my first opportunity to sit on this committee. I have to say that, after almost eight years, I have never seen anything this dysfunctional.

I say this because we have Mr. Bachrach, who comes here in good faith and tries to offer a solution to make sure that this report is moving forward, and then we get all of this vitriol from the members opposite. It's a suggestion. It doesn't need to be pointed out that this is the first time he's at this committee or that he doesn't know what he's doing. He obviously is an incredibly experienced parliamentarian. He put it on the table as a good faith effort to move things forward.

I think all of us can agree that this report has been stalled. It's pretty evident after considering the fact that you have had in camera meetings for six weeks. Instead of actually saying that they agree or disagree with what he has to say, they personally attack him. If that's not bad enough, they're attacking the analysts and taking issue with the tremendous work that analysts do.

I've sat on a lot of committees. I can say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for analysts, who sit there, go through all of the testimony, and try their very best to do it. However, six weeks of reviewing their work can only suggest that you have disdain for the work they do. That, in my opinion—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is there something that you can read us from the minutes where any of my colleagues on either side of the bench here have said anything about the analysts' work? Mr. Ehsassi is all bent out of shape about something that hasn't been said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't think he's literally referring to someone who made a statement saying—

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. McLean, we know that this report has been stalled.

I'm not going to get into exactly—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I believe what's happening here pretty clearly is referencing in camera work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, Mr. Ehsassi has not been party to the in camera work.