Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2018

[Mike Lake]

I will give a bit of explanation, again, and more explanation as to why this motion's so important.

Take a look at the minister's mandate letter, for example. In her mandate letter, there is fairly clear direction. I will read from it:

Our platform guides our government. Over the course of our four-year mandate, I expect us to deliver on all of our commitments. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that we fulfill our promises, while living within our fiscal plan.

That's a pretty straightforward argument there from the Prime Minister directly in the mandate letter.

Reading from that plan directly from the Liberal platform in 2015, it says, “We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments”—

[The Chair]

Can we get around to the motion that I had given direction on and how it relates to the pan-Canadian framework and the agriculture, waste and forestry, which we're talking about? That would be appreciated.

[Mike Lake]

With respect, I've been on committee 13 years. I've served for 13 years. You're allowed some latitude, generally, to get to the point of what you're saying, and there is a point to what I'm saying here.

[The Chair]

I'm just asking you to make that.

[Mike Lake]

Yes, I will.

[The Chair]

We have excellent testimony and experts before us today.

[Mike Lake]

I agree, but in the absence of any mechanism to actually make these points.... We saw that in the last meeting. We have to follow the rules and try to make those points in whatever way we can. I think there are important points to be made here.

I'll read one more sentence from this. I was right in the middle of a sentence, so I'll have to reread the sentence that I was in the middle of:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class. After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

It's a clear promise clearly articulated within the minister's mandate letter. It was interesting that in the last meeting we had officials before the committee talking about the supplementary estimates who couldn't reference any type of conversation, leadership from the minister's office or conversations within the department around any efforts to stay within the budget balance, within the budget program—obviously a real challenge.

The mandate letter goes on to say this, which is where it comes to committee here. This is the Prime Minister writing to his environment minister:

As Minister, you will be held accountable for our commitment to bring a different style of leadership to government. This will include: close collaboration with your colleagues; meaningful engagement with Opposition Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Committees and the public service....

And it continues. He was directly very expressive about meaningful engagement with opposition members of Parliament and parliamentary committees. It was something that was in the minister's mandate letter.

Here, we have a motion. We now have had multiple motions asking for the minister to come before the committee. We wanted that to happen within the context of the supplementary estimates, but as my NDP colleague suggested, if we can't get her within the supplementary estimates, surely we can within this study on forestry, agriculture and waste.

We will as a committee I'm sure—I'm sure the Liberal members will as well—make ourselves available at any given time to have the minister before us. It is critically important that the minister come before us. You'll notice that at least on this side of the table we've been able to work with two parties, the Conservative Party and the NDP, to find some common ground in terms of our approach on things. We both deem it very important that the minister come before the committee.

When we talked about a previous motion and wanted to have a study on what we deemed the carbon tax, the NDP moved an amendment to refer to the carbon tax as “carbon pricing”, which was something that was clearly designed by the NDP member to build a bridge to the Liberal Party. The Liberals basically voted unanimously to stick with the wording “carbon tax” instead of the wording “carbon pricing” just so they could vote against that motion and vote against that study.

[The Chair]

Could I ask you again—it's all interesting background—to try to keep the comments tightened around the motion before us? I have other people on the list I'd also like to get to.

[Mike Lake]

I appreciate that.

Can you tell me who's on the list?

[The Chair]

It's Ms. Dzerowicz and Monsieur Godin.

[Mike Lake]

I fear that as has happened in the past the Liberal member who is on the list will immediately move to stop the debate, thus blocking the appearance of the minister or even the invitation to the minister to come before committee. That tactic has been used in the past in this committee and that's a bit of a challenge obviously for us in terms of—

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

You're the one who used it.

[Mike Lake]

Pardon...?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

You're the one who used it.

[Mike Lake]

We can pass that motion right now unanimously if you want, Mr. Bossio. We can pass that motion unanimously if you want or we could bring it back for discussion. You'll remember that it was done in the spirit of working together.

[The Chair]

We're way off topic here.

[Mike Lake]

I'm sorry. Mr. Bossio engaged in a conversation.

[The Chair]

I'm asking that the conversation between the members end.

[Mike Lake]

Okay, but I'm going to answer the question coming from the Liberal member. The motion was to have the minister appear. We had witnesses who had travelled across the country to be here, and there was a discussion about continuing that conversation, which hasn't happened yet.

In the spirit of continuing that conversation, I imagine that Ms. Dzerowicz, when she gets the floor.... My hope would be that she would add her two cents into the equation and we could continue the conversation, but my fear, of course, is that this conversation is going to be over and we're going to end this meeting without having given the minister a clear invitation that she can come at any point in time to visit this committee.

Why is it so important that we have the minister before the committee to discuss the supplementary estimates?

[The Chair]

Or the motion on the forestry, agriculture and waste....

[Mike Lake]

Or the motion....

Perhaps we can use the opportunity when she comes to discuss forestry, agriculture and waste to also, perhaps, address the supplementary estimates at that time, because it's quite clear that we're running a $20-billion deficit right now, and we have a government that has no idea how to get back to balance.

Here we are, we have a minister who's just added—

[The Chair]

That's starting to stray into territory that I've asked you not to go into. If we can keep the comments to the motion, specifically related to the study that we're dealing with now—forestry, agriculture and waste—that would be really appreciated.

[Mike Lake]

I'm looking for any kind of sign from across the way that we're going to have a meaningful discussion about potentially having the minister here, and not just shut the conversation down.

[Joe Peschisolido, Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.]

We can have a meaningful conversation here.

[Mike Lake]

Joe, that's fair. The Liberal members who aren't on the list continue to weigh in, so I'll continue to answer the questions if they have them, but the reality is, Joe, that we tried to have that conversation and we weren't able to have that conversation.