Government Operations Committee on March 28th, 2024

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

—I'm confused as to why the Premier of New Brunswick is invited here when we're supposed to be discussing the main estimates. Can you explain that to me, Chair?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Certainly. As was explained yesterday, we are on the main estimates. There is over $11 billion in spending related to the carbon tax, which is about a 66% increase from just two years ago and I think about a 35% increase from last year, so it is a discussion on items within the main estimates. Seven of the premiers—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

What I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Long, I respected your time. I would ask you not to interrupt me. Allow me to continue, please.

Seven of the 10 premiers wrote to the Liberal finance committee chair asking for a meeting to discuss this. He refused, so I thought it would be good for the Canadians who are represented by these seven out of the 10 premiers to allow the premiers to speak on the issue. That is why. They are ready to speak on this.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Chair, I'm not clear on where—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I can't help it if you're not clear on that, Mr. Long. I have explained why.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Therefore you're telling me, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to Mr. Naqvi.

Go ahead, please.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Chair, I have the floor right now.

Chair, are you telling me that the Premier of New Brunswick is able to answer questions from us on the main estimates? Is that not why we're here, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Long, the premiers representing 70% of Canadians have been invited to speak. It is not for you to decide their relevance as witnesses, just like you could not question the relevance, perhaps, of the Parliamentary Budget Officer being here yesterday. I have advised you why.

We will now go to Mr. Naqvi.

Go ahead, sir.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not trying to be disruptive. I'm just trying to understand the rules of this committee and other committees. There's an element of precedent-setting that takes place when a particular committee acts in a particular way. I'm trying to understand which rules we are acting under here today. I'm asking the question of you. If the clerk can answer that question, I would sincerely appreciate it.

I would also sincerely appreciate it, Chair, if you did not point to an answer for the clerk to read. I don't think that's fair. The clerk is an expert in parliamentary procedure and he should be able to answer the questions without your guiding him to exactly which answer he should be reading.

Having said that, I'm looking at the motion that this committee passed just yesterday, and I will quickly read it. It says—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Would you please, Mr. Naqvi, get to your point of order?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sir, I am getting to the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I understand what the Liberals are trying to do. They're trying to block Premier Higgs from testifying.

Please just get to the point of order.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With all due respect, that is not my intention.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

No. we're not trying to block the premier.

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, we already have someone on the floor. I've already mentioned this point with respect to Mr. Savard-Tremblay and the interpreters. I have asked people not to talk across the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Naqvi.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

I am speaking to my point of order, because the motion that was adopted by this committee yesterday speaks to that exact point. It expressed its disappointment in the chair for his disregard for the members and his duties as chair. It stated, “That, when the committee undertakes to invite witnesses, (a) a witness list submission deadline be set by the chair with explicit consent of the committee, (b) witnesses be invited proportionately to each recognized party's standing in the House, and (c) no such witnesses shall be invited without instructions of the committee.”

I'll ask you first, Chair, and then the clerk, whether this motion is being respected. I have not seen any documentation that suggests to me that all of these three things, which were just adopted by this committee yesterday, are being undertaken as they relate to witnesses today and moving forward.

I think I know you well, sir. You're a respectful member of Parliament. You would not act in contravention of a motion of your own committee.

I want some clarity on what steps were followed to meet these conditions.

I would also like to hear from the clerk, without your pointing and answering for him.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There was no pointing or directing, but I appreciate that incorrect perspective.

The motion yesterday, as I made very clear, I don't believe is retroactive. The meeting had already been called. A notice had already been put up. Witnesses were already invited. Nowhere in the notice did it say “retroactive”. That was that. The meeting was booked and the witnesses had been called, period.

I'm not sure if you want to ask the clerk to weigh in on that. I'm not sure he hasn't been.

Please go ahead, sir.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you stated, I would leave it to the chair and to the committee to interpret the motion and how it should be used moving forward. At this point, I would echo what the chair stated, which was that the notice was indeed published before this motion was adopted.

That said, based on the terms of the motion, I would leave it to the chair and the committee to decide how to interpret the mechanism and the way to move forward with the motion as it stands. At this point, I would not deem to interpret whether or not today's meeting applies to this motion. I leave it to the chair and the committee to decide how to move forward on that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Next we have Mr. Kusmierczyk, Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I was hoping to get the second part of my question answered, which the clerk provided in his testimony, which I do appreciate.

Again, we're all ready to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, can we get to the point of order, please?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes. I was just saying thank you for finally responding to—