Evidence of meeting #18 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
No, I don't see that, but if that's your ruling, I will respect it. I definitely will not be challenging your decision, but what I would then do is ask for a point of privilege.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Marleau and Montpetit provide a lot of guidance, so that the truth comes out. This refers to superseding motions, and it's on page 454:
A superseding motion is one which is moved for the purpose of superseding (or replacing) the question before the House.
We saw that this was not a superseding motion.
There are two types of superseding motions: the previous question and several motions known collectively as dilatory motions. While the text of an amendment is dependent on the main motion, the text of a superseding motion is predetermined and proposed with the intention of putting aside further discussion of whatever question is before the House.
Superseding motions can be moved without notice when any other debatable motion is before the House. The Member moving a superseding motion can do so only after having been recognized by the Speaker in the course of debate. It is not in order for such a motion to be moved when the Member has been recognized on a point of order or during the period for questions and comments.
And that's what happened.
It is not in order for such a motion to be moved when the Member has been recognized on a point of order or during the period for questions and comments.
And I was making comments. I was interrupted by the member on a point of order. That, according to Marleau and Montpetit, is not proper procedure.
With the exception of the previous question, superseding motions are not debatable—
That was brought up.
—and cannot be applied to one another.
So that's what happened. According to page 454, it should not have happened. The NDP attempted to stop discussion, to stop members of this democratically elected standing committee on the environment. They tried to stifle debate. It shouldn't have happened. It's not parliamentary. It's not democratic.
My father was one of the Canadians who fought for the freedoms we enjoy here in Canada. He served in the Second World War. He served overseas in England. He fought for those freedoms that we enjoy, and we dare not take those for granted. Freedom is being able to speak. The NDP, now, is trying to stifle our freedom and keep us from speaking.
There's another one on page 786. It has to do with “the previous question”. The motion, “That this question be now put”, which is what would happen, is referred to as “the previous question”.
The moving of the previous question is prohibited in the committee of the whole, as it is in any committee. Given that a bill is referred to a committee of the whole for clause-by-clause consideration, the moving of the previous question would prevent members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible.
Its purpose, when moved and debated in the House, is to achieve one of two possible objectives, either to prevent any amendment to the main motion and force a direct vote on it or to delay a vote on the main motion by prolonging the debate. The moving of the previous question is prohibited in the committee of the whole, as it is in any committee. Given that a bill is referred to a committee of the whole for clause-by-clause consideration, the moving of the previous question would prevent members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible.
As we've read in these two portions of Marleau and Montpetit, we had a decision that was not right. All the opposition voted in favour of stifling further debate. But just because they can do it doesn't mean it's right. That's why I look forward to a ruling from the Speaker.
One other point I would like to bring up is the right to speak. I've provided my heartfelt example of the freedoms that we dare not ever take for granted in Canada. Even though you may have the numbers to be able to stifle debate, you always have to give people the right to speak.
Marleau and Montpetit gives us that guidance. It says that members must be recognized by the chair before speaking. On occasion, committees place strict limits on the amount of time during which a given item will be considered. That's normal.
Unfortunately, what we've seen happening today in this committee was an unfair amount of stopping of opportunities and rights to speak. In other cases, committee members have been free to discuss a matter for as long as they have seen fit.
Members of the House attending committee meetings who are not committee members or substitutes may, at the discretion of the committee, participate in the deliberations. So other members can come and speak and ask questions. However, they do not have the right to present motions, to vote, or to be counted in the quorum, which is a very important point to remember. Although they ordinarily withdraw when the committee deliberates in camera, they are sometimes permitted to remain at an in camera meeting.
We are in a minority government. We have more members of the opposition than we do of the government. We have a similar situation in committee in that there are more members that are opposition members than are government members. If the opposition gangs together, they can outvote and stifle good debate. They can hijack the committee, and that's what we've seen happening, and it's what happened a couple of months ago, just before Christmas.
Also in Marleau and Montpetit is guidance on subcommittees. Subcommittees are to be made up of the parliamentary secretary...for putting together witness lists. I was making the point--and I was interrupted by Mr. Cullen--that it's very important that we have the right to speak. What is happening, and what we're seeing demonstrated by the NDP, is that they're trying to take away that right. It shouldn't be happening, Mr. Chair.
We've seen very clearly what I've shared with the committee from Marleau and , which is that we have a democratic right. According to our manual, our guidance book, we should be given the right to speak, and the truth needs to come out.
Mr. Chair, I would like to hear from the clerk, through you, a comment on the points I was making.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I think our problem, Mr. Warawa—and I'll try to answer this as it's been explained to me—is that we're talking about House rules and what happens in the House. As you well know, that does not apply in committee. Committees are masters of their own fate.
I believe you want to talk to this motion. We certainly want to vote on this motion as soon as possible, and we want to get on with getting back to clause-by-clause. But you do have the right to speak about this motion and your concerns about the extension, and why it should or shouldn't be. Certainly I've tried to give all the leeway possible to do that.
On the question of privilege, basically the concern is that you are referencing House rules as opposed to committee rules. I believe, as I say, that the committee is the master of its own fate. I would like us to get on with the motion, if we could refer to that, and ultimately the question.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
My question, through you to the clerk, is whether he believes what I have read to this point is in reference to the process within the House itself and not in committee. Is that what I'm hearing?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I have one more reference. I thought that was sufficient. I would have thought that the principles of having an opportunity to speak would be maintained throughout Parliament, and not taken away because the opposition has more members.
What's happened to this point is very unfair. I'll give another example. There are so many that give us that guidance about the right to speak, that things should be done properly.
On page 85, it talks about physical obstruction and assault:
In circumstances where Members claim to be directly obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary duties, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred. This may be physical obstruction, assault or molestation.
On October 30, 1989, Speaker Fraser ruled that a prima facie case of privilege existed when Herb Gray from Windsor West raised a question of privilege claiming that an RCMP roadblock on Parliament Hill, meant to contain demonstrators, constituted a breach of a member's privilege by denying him access to the House of Commons.
On February 17, 1999, a number of questions of privilege were raised resulting from picket lines set up by the members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada at strategic locations of entry to Parliament Hill and at the entrances to specific buildings used by parliamentarians. Jim Pankiw, from Saskatchewan, in his submission, stated that the strikers had used physical violence and intimidation to stop him from gaining access to his office. You would have been around back then.
On this matter, Speaker Parent immediately ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege. Mr. Pankiw moved that the matter of his molestation be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and it was agreed to without debate. Again, he needs to have those rights to speak and to present his case, as that is referred to the standing committee. This is a standing committee, too. There are a number of standing committees. Those are committees that have to respect the rules and the rights of all parliamentarians.
My question, through you to the clerk, is, would you see this applying, in the spirit of guidance, to a process that will give members an opportunity to speak? Without that--I'm hoping that is the answer, that yes, this does apply, in principle.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, on your point of privilege, I think all the members have been listening. The procedure now would be to ask the members of the committee if they deem that to be a point of privilege, to vote on that, and then report that to the House, that in fact your privilege was as you claim.
That would be the procedural way, if you want to proceed to do that--
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm not done yet. I was asking for a response from the clerk, through you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
This is where our discussions have gotten to that this is how this point of privilege will in fact be handled, because really what we've done....
You know, I did let Mr. Cullen make his motion. I made a ruling to in fact let you continue. There was a vote on that, and on that vote I was overruled.
I am now dealing with your point of privilege. The way we deal with that point of privilege is that everyone listens to your arguments, and that decision is made and reported to the House--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
No, I would ask that you conclude your point of privilege, ask the members to listen, and then we'll vote. We'll either report it to the House or we won't.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
So, Chair, I'm looking at the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and, again, this is our guidance. We have Marleau and Montpetit for process and the Standing Orders.
The Standing Orders, on page 90, say
In a standing, special or legislative committee...
—and this is a legislative committee—
...the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
Chair, that's what I have brought: the Standing Orders and Marleau and Montpetit. The point of privilege I'm speaking to is the privilege that was taken away from me to speak on a very important topic, the freedom to speak on the environment.
Chair, as I in all sincerity shared what the commissioner was recommending to Parliament—many of us have met with the commissioner, many of us have listened intently to her previous critique, and I believe Thursday of this week the commissioner will be providing a new critique—there has been a legacy of inaction.
We heard from one of the witnesses, and it was a very concerning comment. This was from the advisors to the government at the Bali conference—no, I'm sorry, it was one of the witness groups. We heard that Canada has been embarrassed over the last 10 or 15 years by inaction of government and a lot of promises made, a lot of proclamations made. The commissioner has recommended some really clear guidelines that we go from rhetoric to action.
She, at that time, gave us a very, very clear recommendation of how important it is to conduct the economic, the social, the environmental, and risk analyses, the impact analysis, of any legislation that would guide Canada or that would even bind Canada, Chair, and I wasn't given the opportunity to share that. I was cut off.
That point of privilege I'm making is that it's important that we give everyone on this committee an opportunity to present what they believe is really important on Bill C-377, because that's the topic.
Regarding Bill C-377, as we have it before us today, Chair, we had a number of quotations from a number of people who raised concern.
Ms. Vicki Pollard was one of those, and she said,
Our own analysis shows that investing in a low-carbon economy would reduce global GDP growth by 0.19% per year up to 2030.
That is just a fraction of the expected projected annual GDP growth rate, which is 2.8%. It is 0.19% related to 2.8%, and this is without taking into account the associated health benefits, greater energy efficiency and security, and reduced damage from avoiding climate change.
Mr. James Hughes went on to share—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, could you just maybe compress this? I would like to give the opportunity to others who would like to comment, and ultimately get on with the process.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, and I will. I'm doing this as quickly as I can, with that in mind.
Mr. Hughes said that clearly the IPCC report has provided us with evidence that clarifies that urgent action needs to be taken. Even if all greenhouse gas emissions stop tomorrow, we're already looking into further warming of about 0.6% Celsius over the next few decades. Clearly, if we don't soon review stated current emission projections and the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are likely to reach 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent by around 2035. That would commit the world to at least a two-degree warming, and we all have heard, through the IPCC report, how damaging that would be to the global environment.
As Ms. Pollard said--and these are, again, the comments of Mr. James Hughes--that we need to see emissions peaking in 2020, and we need to see those reductions in the order of between 60% to 80% by 2050. Well, the government's Turning the Corner plan's share is 60% to 70% by 2050, so we're right in line with what Mr. Hughes is suggesting, and we agree with the science. That's why any piece of legislation that is passed has to be real. It can't be just empty, phony window-dressing; it has to be real. That's why I feel so passionate about this, Chair.
Vicki Pollard went on to say:
The EU's position is that we want to see a comprehensive agreement with broad participation--
--as do we Chair--
that we're not asking for developing countries or emerging economies to take on the same sorts of commitments that we do, because we think they need room for development. We reflect the same thing in our effort-sharing within the European Union. We look at levels of GDP per capita in sharing out the efforts, but we're also clear that there has to be differentiation between developing countries.
She went on to say that they see it more as a question of “if we can show we can do it, we can persuade them to take action”--referring to developing countries.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Excuse me, Mr. Warawa.
We're talking about your point of privilege and trying to clarify this for the members so they can vote. I think you're getting quite a long way from your point of privilege in terms of telling us what the committee heard.
So could you try to talk about your point of privilege? There is at least one other member who has a comment. I don't know if anyone else does, but I do have to invite comments on your point of privilege before we vote on that point of privilege, which we then report to the House.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I appreciate that, Chair, and I will try to stay on the point of privilege, which is why I'm speaking.
On the point of privilege, I believe I did not have a chance to share some very important facts for the committee because I was cut off by Mr. Cullen and his motion. That privilege that was taken away from me was to share very important comments by some of our witnesses, which they provided as written comments.
Vicki Pollard went on to say:
By taking action, which also involves investment in their countries through mechanisms like the CDM, we help demonstrate clean technologies and engage them in innovative policy instruments to show them what can be done, to help them get experience of doing this, and we can help move them along that path towards taking the action or increasing the action they're already taking to the levels to which it needs to be taken.
Again, it is very important that this committee hears this testimony and is reminded of that important testimony. It has been a few weeks since we heard them, and the actions we've seen from the NDP, trying to cut off the debate, have taken away the privilege of us speaking. It has also confused some who may have forgotten the important testimony that we heard from the witnesses.
Vicki Pollard went on to say:
From the European Commission perspective, all legislation that we adopt is associated with impact assessment. The extent of impact assessment depends on the nature of the provisions in that bill.
We heard time and time again how important the impact assessment is, from the commission, and I shared that with the committee and they didn't want to hear that; from Vicki Pollard, one of the witnesses, and they did not want to hear that. But again, that was another recommendation of how important an impact assessment is.
She went on to say:
An impact assessment that looks at the net economic cost of costs and benefits but also social and environmental....
James Hughes went on to say, as Vicki had mentioned:
Here in the U.K. all new regulations in Europe have to go through, as Vicki has mentioned, an impact assessment, and the impact assessment that would be required here would include an assessment of the costs of that policy as well.
What we're seeing in the NDP's proposal is to put the cart before the horse. We have Mr. Layton saying, “Well, I want the government to find out what the impacts of this legislation will be; I want the government to do the costing of the plan.” That's putting the cart before the horse. It doesn't make sense.
Jim Hughes went on to say:
We think there needs to be an international agreement that includes all countries, including all the major emitters as well. And we feel they need to be involved--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, could you just summarize this? There are three other members who have asked to speak about this. It's your point of privilege. I'm trying to let you make that point of privilege as extensively as you can and try to convince all your colleagues here to vote for you on this. But if you could just summarize your last comments, we can get on.
Mr. Watson is next to comment.
Mr. Godfrey, I'll put you on the list.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, I appreciate the patience of the committee and I will try to conclude as quickly as I can.
A point of privilege is very important, and I want to share a couple more quotes before I conclude. James Hughes said:
We think there needs to be an international agreement that includes all countries, including all the major emitters as well.
We heard, Chair, how important it is that we have all the major emitters involved, and we heard that right now under the Kyoto agreement we have 30% of the emitters who are part of the solution. We were told how important it is to have everybody involved, and particularly with the G-8 plus five--remember that?--the idea was, if we had the G-8 plus five committing to accept those reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we'd have 80% of the major emitters involved with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Without having a commitment from all the major emitters, we will not have a solution of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
We advocate an important role for municipalities, provincial governments, and the federal government. We do our work in that way because different scales of effort matter in different issues. This is certainly one of those areas where that is true, where efforts by some of Canada's big municipalities are important, as well as the efforts of provincial and federal governments.
Chair, I want to take this opportunity to share with the committee what's happening in my riding. I've tried to share that before, but it's very important. In my riding of Langley we have two local governments--the Langley city and the Langley township. The township bought a new building, and it was a building that was only half or three-quarters completed. They put geothermal heating into it. The operational cost for heating and lighting this beautiful new municipal building is incredible.
Each of us can do that. I've made that commitment personally, Chair, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases our riding office uses, and it's quite interesting. We have fluorescent lighting that we see in this office here, but these are 40-watt light bulbs. You can reduce energy dramatically by changing four light bulbs into the 32-watt--the new technology. And it's been a wonderful privilege to reduce my carbon footprint. Also, the electricity bill for my riding office has dropped dramatically; it costs fewer taxpayers' dollars to heat and light that office. So it's exciting.
We also heard the constitutional problem with Bill C-377 is that it leaves the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions solely to the regulation-making power vested in the executive. That is a big concern. The only direction given to the Governor in Council as to the nature of the regulations is that they must be to carry out the purpose and provisions of this act and to ensure that Canada fully meets its commitment under section 5 targets for 2020, and there are later targets as well.
This extraordinarily broad and sweeping regulation-making power purports to authorize any regulation that would have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations could potentially reach into every area of Canadian economic and social life. The bill enacts no restrictions as to the kinds of laws that are contemplated or the kinds of activities that can be regulated. Such a sweeping grant of authority to the executive is unprecedented outside of wartime and should be a matter of political concern quite apart from the constitutional issues. Who said that? That was Professor Peter Hogg. I was very, very surprised that this privilege of sharing with the committee, how concerned I was that the Bloc--
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Chairman, whether or not it's a point of privilege or a point of order, the member has to be relevant to the topic. If I'm not mistaken--and I came here a little bit late--his privilege to speak was taken away. Now he's talking about carbon dioxide or something. He is way, way off topic. He has to be relevant to that topic. At one point, you've got to make a decision on this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Because it's his point of privilege, I have let him take as much latitude as possible.