Environment Committee on April 9th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

--stay on topic and let Mr. Warawa listen to Mr. Watson and everyone else to concentrate.

Mr. Watson, you have the floor.

[An hon. member]

It had better be interesting.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find, Mr. Chair, every time I'm getting close to wrapping things up, there are all kinds of folks jumping in over here. The record will show, Mr. Chair, that I was very near the end of my comments in the last meeting when they started interrupting to ask how long I was going to speak. That's why I always say to stay tuned. We could be close to finishing up here.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I was making the point before all of these interruptions that what sets us apart is that in a civil democracy, in a civil society, we engage with words, not with force. Think about what that means to Zimbabwe. Think about what that means to Sudan. Think about what it means to an emerging democracy in Afghanistan, Mr. Chair.

I hear chuckles from some of the young folks who are in the audience here today watching. Those are freedoms that they're going to hope for down the road, Mr. Chair, and they're the freedoms that young people in other parts of the world, in third world countries, don't enjoy.

It is important. It is extremely important. It's so important that it's foundational. It's a cornerstone. It's what allows us to enjoy the type of prosperity and freedom and openness, and freedom from war. Civilized countries don't often go to war with each other, Mr. Chairman. There's peace that comes with civil society, and that's an important thing. If you want to chip away at the foundational stone with two minutes per speaker per clause, a draconian limit on freedom of speech....

I have to remind Mr. Cullen, who's chirping in once again, that this is not the trade committee, Mr. Chair, and this committee can set its own destiny.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My goodness.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

But, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, just address me and don't listen to any outside noise.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd appreciate order at the committee so that I can in fact speak to you, Mr. Chair, and speak through you.

So here we are on the anniversary of Vimy Ridge, Mr. Chair. This is important. It's not just a symbol. It's not just an emblem. Either people fought for something that was important and foundational or they didn't, Mr. Chair. Two minutes per speaker per clause, I think, is a very, very bad motion.

I'm going to round my comments out with that. I think I've made my three key points about that. My encouragement to this committee, my warning to the committee, is that if we're going to chip away at the very cornerstone of a building, the building will collapse. That civil society that we built sits precariously on freedom of speech. It's precarious today because it's being threatened, and that's a very important concept that we can't lose sight of. Mr. Chair, that is something my constituents appreciate and that ultimately is in the national interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good, thank you, Mr. Watson.

Now, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Watson for his intervention. I found it heartfelt and hopefully it will enlighten some members of this committee. I found it interesting.

Chair, the motion that we find right now is a motion to limit the opportunity for us to speak. This started in our clause-by-clause debate, discussions, over Bill C-377. I think we would not be where we are if Bill C-377 was a good bill. If Bill C-377 had been supported by the witness groups, we wouldn't be where we are. What happened was that the witness groups said very clearly that there were some significant problems with Bill C-377. We heard from numerous witness groups, and every one of them said it should be costed.

What Mr. Cullen is suggesting by his motion is that we limit all critique to two minutes, and it's not realistic. So one would ask why Mr. Cullen would want to limit members of this committee from speaking for only two minutes.

Chair, there was another issue that came up on Bill C-377, which was that it was not constitutionally sound and that it would be challenged and likely defeated because it would give unlimited powers to the federal government over the provinces and territories. Do we need more than two minutes to talk about that? Absolutely. And for Mr. Cullen to attempt to stop all discussion after two minutes is beyond comprehension, actually.

Mr. Chair, it was Mr. Layton who introduced the bill, and after Mr. Layton was done speaking, it was Mr. Bramley who spoke to this committee. Both of them suggested that the government do a costing of Bill C-377. Can you do a critique, a costing, with two minutes? Well, not a very thorough costing.

I found it quite ironic in the questions we've also heard in the House--and there are definite timeframes in the House, because we have, for question period, approximately 45 minutes, Monday to Friday. There is approximately 30 seconds for a question to be asked and approximately 30 seconds for an answer, because of that timeframe.

Now it's actually 35 seconds, as Mr. McGuinty points out, but we try to aim at 30, because sometimes with the noise and the exuberance in the House, if you aim for 30, sometimes it's 35 by the time you actually start talking from when your light comes on. So it's very important that we have timeframes, depending on the circumstances.

Bills are debated in the House and sent to this committee to be properly debated. In that process, for example, Bill C-377 is sent to this committee to hear from witnesses and then to be debated. As I pointed out, we heard from witness group after witness group, and every one, including Mr. Layton and Mr. Bramley, said that the government needs to do the costing.

What we heard in question period, yesterday actually, was a question on the quality of our water. It was an NDP member from Vancouver Island North, Ms. Bell, who asked about the number of boil orders over a number of years--actually 1,760 boil orders. Well, that's a very serious problem, Chair. And this government is committed to cleaning up the water in Canada.

On one hand, we have members from the NDP—with time limits, appropriately, within a question period—who asked this 30- or 35-second question about boil orders, and then we had a subsequent answer. It was Minister Baird who answered the NDP member very clearly that the government is helping communities to clean up waste water treatment facilities with $8 billion.

Now, the NDP knew about that, but they voted against it. That's the difficult irony I have. On one hand, in question period they're asking questions about why we aren't cleaning up water. Well, we are, yet they voted against it. To be able to deal with that takes more than two minutes. To be able to share that takes more than two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It seems that the member digresses from the subject of the motion, as you may have noted. Maybe you could ask him to stick to the spirit of the motion because he is starting to really stray away form it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Again, Mr. Warawa, as we've discussed, keeping it to the two minutes and your feeling about this motion is where we want to go, much as Mr. Watson did. Would you please keep to the motion and keep within that debate.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think if Mr. Bigras were to check the record, he'd see.... There may be a lag between when I'm speaking and the translation, but in actuality—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Bigras?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I find the behaviour of Mr. Warawa unacceptable. He is saying that the interpreters are not doing their job properly.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

He said that there was a lag.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

There is no lag. I heard very well what Mr. Warawa said. I would ask that he be called to order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, I'm listening to the translation. Obviously I'm getting it very clearly. I don't believe Mr. Warawa was suggesting that the translators aren't doing a good job. I think they are. Let's just carry on.

Let's deal with the motion, Mr. Warawa, if we could.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

No disrespect was meant. What I was saying was that I had just been mentioning the importance of two minutes not being sufficient to deal with the issue of water. That's why I was suggesting maybe there was a lag.

But I appreciate the importance of staying on topic and I am committed to doing that.

Speaking to the importance of dealing with cleaner water, which is part of the environment, you cannot deal with clean water and policies—and even sharing those—within the limitations of two minutes. You can't deal with climate change and plans within two minutes. It is not possible.

The irony of what we're seeing, with the NDP bringing up a policy at question period and asking “Why aren't you doing something?”—the first irony—is that they vote against anything the government is doing and its funding, and then say, “Why aren't you doing something?” In actuality, this government is very committed to cleaning up water.

We're also committed to cleaning up the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's why the government introduced the Turning the Corner plan a year ago. We're already seeing very positive things, results of....

Chair, I'm finding Mr. McGuinty quite disruptive. I'd ask that he respect my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You can refer to your documents. That's what he's doing. We can certainly get a copy for you, if you don't have one.

Mr. Warawa, just continue, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I did bring copies of this. It's actually a newly compiled document, and I'd like to pass them out, through you or the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Through the clerk.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Our government is very concerned about the environment, and that's why our target is the toughest in Canadian history: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with absolute reductions of 20% by 2020. That's why we're already seeing positive results within the community and industry, with even a carbon market through the Montreal Climate Exchange.

With these signals of action on the environment in Canada, we're already seeing the positive signals that would not be happening with Bill C-377, particularly if everyone on this committee were limited to two minutes to debate Bill C-377. That's why Canada has a plan already in place—the Turning the Corner plan—that is providing these positive results.

But the topic at hand is whether we should be limiting all discussion about Bill C-377 to two minutes. Chair, I would suggest it's not fair and it's not right.

The environment is very important to me. I have been impassioned about the environment for most of my life. I live in British Columbia, one of the most beautiful parts of Canada, in the Fraser Valley, in my riding of Langley. The environment is very important. I have a responsibility, Chair, to work hard for my constituents and to represent them, and a moral obligation to work hard for a cleaner environment, and not only for the health of just this generation—and hopefully, Lord willing, I'll be living a lot more years. I want a cleaner environment for my wife and myself, but also for my family—my children and my grandchildren—and my neighbour's family and our community. That's why I've taken this to be so important.

I've found, Chair, that Bill C-377 is a very empty and hollow bill that will not achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. What we would end up seeing is dramatic costs for energy, dramatic increases in the cost of gasoline, natural gas, electricity—dramatic increases in cost to Canadians. Chair, that's not what Canadians want.

Canadians don't want a sin tax. They don't want increased taxes. They don't even want increased gasoline prices, to the point where two days ago the NDP again rose in the House and asked a question about rising gasoline prices. The irony is that Bill C-377 would cause dramatic increases in gasoline prices. And how can we share that in two minutes, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, again, would you relate this to the two-minute question of the motion, please?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

How can we share with Canadians in two minutes the irony of the NDP, on the one hand, requiring their members to stand in the House and ask why gas prices are going up, while in this committee they're asking for gas prices to go up?