Evidence of meeting #25 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.
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Mr. Chairman, how does this relate to the two-minute time limit?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I think Mr. Warawa's point is that in two minutes he can't develop this particular part of the topic. He is referring to your motion.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, just to clarify, the bill says nothing about gas prices, says nothing about vehicle manufacturers, says nothing about a plan that the government keeps soliciting as reasons for their filibuster, and yet there's nothing there.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
If we were on clause 10, obviously we'd be talking about penalties, limitations, accountability, and so on. But we're not on clause 10.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're on the question of two minutes and whether you can develop your subject in two minutes.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, this is important, because you've said this. At another committee of this place, with the same rules guiding it, these same people voted for a three-minute limitation. Is that what they're suggesting?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
A friendly amendment is most welcome, if that's what they're looking for.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
This is not the transport committee. Again, we have the rules. You will get the floor, Mr. Cullen.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You don't have to be far down the list to be forever waiting, Chair.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
It's interesting that the NDP did not like my bringing this up. When I talked on one hand about their asking for reduced gas prices, with Bill C-377 it hasn't been costed, and they don't want it costed. One day they do want it costed; it was when Mr. Layton was here. Every witness group said that it should be costed and that there should be an impact analysis. The reason I believe they don't want it costed is that we know there will be dramatic increases in the cost of energy. Chair, Canadians need to hear about that, and they can't hear about it if you restrict the time.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Go ahead, Mr. Warawa. Develop your point about the motion. Obviously we've got to talk about the motion.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, the motion is that Mr. Cullen would like to see the members of this committee limited in their speaking time to two minutes. Chair, I don't believe that's proper. It would limit the opportunity for us to share with Canadians the concerns--and they are legitimate concerns--about Bill C-377. It would not hold the NDP accountable if we limited our comments to two minutes, comments that I need to make about the impact Bill C-377 would have on the environment--which is nothing--and the impact that Bill C-377 would have on the economy of Canada, which would be dramatic. There would be dramatic increases in the cost of energy and increases in the cost of gasoline. They're speaking against these increases on one hand, and then, in the committee, they're speaking in favour of them.
Chair, it's not possible to talk about this in two-minute limitations. We need to have thorough debate, and what we have from the NDP is attempts to limit debate.
It's quite ironic, Chair, that it would be the NDP, a party that has a long history in Canada. Tommy Douglas worked hard for Canadians, and now we have an NDP that has evolved to the point where it's limiting debate. That's their attempt. This is a party that has done very little in Parliament, and now they're trying to limit debate in Parliament. Chair, I don't think it's appropriate. Maybe they need to change the name of their party, because what we're seeing happening here is not democratic.
Chair, as I said, I have had a passion for the environment for years. A number of years ago in my riding there was a serious issue of an energy plant that they wanted to build, called SE2. I fought against that vehemently, as did our community. We had opportunities to go to EFSEC and we had opportunities to go before the energy board, and you cannot share properly the concerns of the committee in two minutes, Chair. It's example after example, Chair; you cannot limit thorough debate to two minutes. It has to be appropriate debate.
What I am speaking against in the motion is the limitation to two minutes.
Chair, let us think back to my parliamentary model, and then I'll get back to the immediate issue. My parliamentary model was a man by the name of William Wilberforce. He was in the British Parliament in the late 1700s. Chair, he spoke in the British Parliament over approximately 40 years, fighting for the abolition of slavery. Could he have done that, Chair, if he had been broken and limited to two-minute speeches? He would not have been able to.
Throughout history, Chair, people have been fighting for freedoms, and the basic freedom of democracy is the freedom of speech. Chair, what we see from the NDP here is an attempt with this motion.... Chair, I gave Mr. Cullen the opportunity to do the right thing and remove his motion from the table, and he refused to do that. He wanted to forge ahead and have speech limited to two minutes, so here we are dealing with this motion.
As I said, Chair, under Canadian constitutional law, freedom of expression is incredibly important.
Paragraph 2(b) of the charter states that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication. Chair, it's part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is a direct attack against that freedom. Two minutes is not an adequate amount of time to share in this committee and fulfill my responsibilities representing my constituents in the beautiful community of Langley, to speak and share my concerns about Bill C-377.
If Bill C-377 was a bill that was well written, that ensured that we would see reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, then I think you would have a totally different atmosphere in this committee, but we've heard from every witness group that it will not accomplish a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It was not costed, and they have every opportunity to cost it. It doesn't include talking about carbon capture and storage. Bill C-377 does not deal with absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, if the parliamentary secretary wants to talk about the merits of the bill, then I would ask him again that I withdraw this motion so we can get back to the bill and see it through. Instead, he continues--18 hours and 15 minutes--to push with this filibuster. He's filibustering on something we attempted to do to see some progress here. Now he's resisting any more progress.
If the parliamentary secretary would finish his point, allow the withdrawal of the motion, we can move on to the bill itself, which he seems so eager to talk about.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, you do have the opportunity to.... If it's unanimous, he can withdraw his motion, but it has to be unanimous. You're not giving unanimous consent.
Again, you realize what we're slowly deteriorating into--
