Environment Committee on April 9th, 2008

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No problem, sir. Every hour I will prop it up for 15 seconds to remind people where we are, just so we know where we are.

Thank you very much, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, we'll finally begin to debate the motion. I've read the motion. You've heard the motion.

Mr. Warawa, on a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. McGuinty has gone against your ruling. He has now said he is going to be using that prop every hour for 15 seconds.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's what he suggested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

At the beginning of every meeting I'll announce the time.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, is he going to respect your ruling or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe he will in good faith. I think he will let me report the time, where we're at, at each meeting, and I trust that he'll do that. We'll cross that bridge if and when it comes. We hope it doesn't, because I don't really believe that anybody here wants to carry on under this type of display. So yes, he will obey the--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of clarification, Chair, if Mr. McGuinty were to not respect that, would that be an adjournment or a suspension?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I can't deal in hypotheticals, Mr. Warawa. We'll deal with it when and if it happens.

Mr. Watson, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the encouragement from Mr. McGuinty across the way.

Mr. Chair, we're speaking to a motion here to limit debate, the motion being two minutes per speaker per clause. Mr. Chair, off the bat, I'll say I'm opposed to this particular motion for a number of reasons.

Mr. Chair, I think it's a bad motion for some very significant reasons, the motion to limit debate in such a draconian fashion to two minutes per speaker per clause. First of all, I think it's a bad motion with respect to the freedom of speech, which is the cornerstone of Parliament and our democracy.

Mr. Chair, if we turn to Marleau and Montpetit, page 71, I'll quote from M and M under the heading of freedom of speech. It says:

By far, the most important right accorded to members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. It has been described as

--and he subquotes within that--

a fundamental right

--not something corollary or periphery, Mr. Chair--

without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them time to speak in the House without inhibition,

--that means with complete latitude, Mr. Chair, not being intimidated by the force of the will of a majority--

to refer to any matter or express any opinion that they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

Now, Mr. Chair, there are some caveats to that. It goes on to talk about things like immunity for members of Parliament, but they all build on the very cornerstone of a fundamental right, which is freedom of speech. Two minutes per speaker per clause is not what I think would be defined as freedom of speech. The opposition may find it inconvenient that they can't impose their will on the committee because the rules foster debate, not shutting it down. That may be an inconvenience to them. They may not like it, and perhaps they take that position and their opinion in the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, on a point of order.

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

I don't mean to interrupt Mr. Watson as he gets going. Just for the record, so Mr. Watson understands where this came from, because I'm not sure he does, this was modelled after the international trade committee in which his party supported the adoption of a three-minute time limit for all speakers.

If he's willing to go to three minutes, then we're fine. But don't talk to us.... We'll stay here as long as it takes to break this filibuster, to break the government's will in holding up climate change. He's suggesting undemocratic principles and such, and I'll remind him that his committee members at another committee imposed the very same rules. I'm asking him whether he raised such objections at the time, because we need to get on to the issue of climate change and this has to stop.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Watson, carry on, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'll get back to the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was talking of freedom of speech and that this may be inconvenient. Obviously Mr. Cullen finds it inconvenient that members of Parliament exercise their full right and privilege to speak freely.

Mr. Chair, as I was trying to make the point earlier when I was interrupted by Mr. Cullen, the members opposite may feel that what they're doing, as I read here, is in the national interest or the aspirations of their constituents in trying to enforce their will with respect to this particular piece of legislation. But they can't interpret for the benefit of our constituents or what we may regard in the national interest, and that's why we have debate. Those matters are to be settled through debate. It's to be settled through a difficult calculus where members of Parliament interact with their own constituents on an ongoing basis. And ultimately the decisions for those will be rendered at election time. All members will stand accountable to their constituents for how they exercise their freedom of speech. Did they in fact do it in the interest of their constituents or in the national interest?

That's the beauty of our system, Mr. Chair. It's one of the reasons I oppose this motion. Two minutes per speaker per clause is a serious inhibition of a member's ability to speak in both the national interest and in the interest of constituents.

I don't pretend for a moment, for example, to try to interpret what the constituents in Mr. Cullen's riding want. I don't know how to perform that calculus, Mr. Chair. I don't live there. I don't circulate through the communities. In much the same respect, Mr. Cullen doesn't represent my constituency. He doesn't circulate through my communities. He doesn't know the people there. He doesn't know what they're thinking. If perhaps a constituent or two or maybe more write or phone Mr. Cullen, he may have some idea of what those specific constituents want. But dealing in the calculus of what my constituents want or what we deem to be in the national interest is something that is between a member of Parliament and the constituents.

Now, Mr. Chair, this motion of two minutes per speaker per clause is impinging on freedom of speech. There are reasonable limits to free speech both in society and in the House. We recognize that through our rules. In terms of the House of Commons, which is the cornerstone institution nationally speaking, Mr. Chair, we have the unique situation where reasonableness is limited in a much more generous fashion than in two minutes per speaker per clause.

There are limits--for example, closure on debate, when you bring free speech to a close. We recognize that's a tool that exists, but it's a prerogative of the crown; it's not a prerogative extended to the opposition. We have other limits. We do define certain limits for each stage of debate, that only a certain amount of debate can exist, but they're not draconian. Even in invoking closure, we don't suggest that it's two minutes per speaker in any fashion, Mr. Chair.

If the opposition considers it a flaw to the system that debate can continue in such a fashion as it's been continuing here at this committee, that's a flaw on the side of free speech, and I think that's something, Mr. Chair, that is incredibly important.

This is a bad motion, furthermore, Mr. Chair, this idea of two minutes per speaker per clause, because it ignores, as well, the fundamental place of rules and the importance of rules in society, in civilization, within our institutions. I'll elaborate on that a little. For example, Mr. Chair, our important documents recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. The importance of rules, Mr. Chair, is the preamble to everything else, and it's important.

Those who have thought long and hard in setting up the institutions of our country and the direction we would go in said we would start with the supremacy of the rule of law--with rules. That is very significant foundational stuff. We're not talking about the stuff you build on a foundation; this is foundational stuff. It starts with rules.

This motion ignores the concept of rules. The rule of law exists, Mr. Chair. It was a very radical concept in its time, because it substituted the arbitrariness of one person's will over another, or even the will of a majority over a minority. It was a very radical concept when in history there was rule by kings and rule by despots. This was a very radical departure.

Two minutes per speaker per clause ignores the foundational aspect of rules, Mr. Chair. Our civilization is built on the cornerstone of the rule of law. It's one of the things I think would define the civility within civilization.

Furthermore, Mr. Chair, when we're talking about rules, the importance of rules, and why this motion is bad, we have rules for society that go beyond the principle of the rule of law, if we bore down into that. Our Constitution, the preamble of which sets out the importance of the rule of law, is a set of rules that define relationships between levels of government so that we can serve the people, among other things, and maintain peace and order. It's why rules are important, Mr. Chair.

This motion ignores the importance of rules.

In society we also have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have a lot of talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Chair. The Charter of Rights and the bills of rights that preceded it established inviolable relational rules for individuals as they interact within society. Mr. Chair, it's extremely important that we understand the importance of rules and why this motion is so bad.

Let's bore down even deeper into that. It's not just about the preamble to a constitution or the founding documents such as a constitution or, later, bills of rights or charters of rights, but about statute laws, Mr. Chair. They function within the charter framework and bore down into the details of what these relationships should look like.

Here parliamentarians enter into debate and enjoy free speech. They do these roles after elections with the consent of the people, not with the arbitrariness of imposing one's will or the majority's will over another.

Mr. Chair, it's important, even further down from that, that regulations bore down more deeply and more specifically into the rules that govern relationships. We have the court system to interpret these rules and the police and other law enforcement agencies to enforce the rules.

Rules aren't something peripheral to our civilization, Mr. Chair; they're foundational. They permeate every aspect of our institutions. They permeate every aspect of society, governing the relationships of people within society.

Mr. Chair, we have rules within Parliament. Your ruling earlier discussed the importance of rules within our parliamentary institutions. We have Standing Orders that define the rules of engagement and debate within our institutions. The committee also has rules, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, can we have a little bit of order at the committee, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I will have to clear the room if in fact these signs are going to carry on. I will clear the room of all people here immediately. This will be one warning; I will suspend and I will ask the room to be cleared, so I would ask you not to do that. It is a very definite request.

Carry on, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll go back to the motion at hand, which concerns the two minutes per speaker per clause.

Mr. McGuinty says we should go back to the Magna Carta. That would take a little more than two minutes per speaker per clause, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, to go back to the point, even Parliament and its institutions—the House of Commons, the Senate—have rules. They establish rules to facilitate debate, not to shut it down. This was a bit of my point earlier, when we were talking about your ruling.

The rules don't exist for the majority to impose its unfettered will on the minority in Parliament. Our Charter of Rights flows out of the recognition that a minority group—or even, for that matter, an individual—versus the state has rights. We're protected against the imposition of the sheer will of a majority. We recognize that in the Standing Orders of the House. We recognize it in the committee rules as well. They foster debate.

Two minutes per speaker per clause doesn't foster debate. It closes it down.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, again I appreciate your encouragement of decorum. What I am attempting to do is listen to Mr. Watson, but it takes about 20 interruptions from Mr. McGuinty before I raise a point of order. I shouldn't have to wait that many times, sir, and so through you, I would ask that Mr. McGuinty show decorum and allow Mr. Watson to have his time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would ask all members to maintain decorum, to set an example for the people who are watching, and let's deal with this. We are following the rules as written, and the rules say that we have a speaking list, that Mr. Watson is speaking, that he's staying on topic because he is talking about the two-minute timeline. That's what the rules are.

I would ask everybody to enjoy your cup of coffee and think about what we're going to have for lunch. Let's hope it's not as bad as we've had some other days, and we won't order the one when we didn't have enough; we'll take care of it.

Think about that, and let's move on and listen to Mr. Watson.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I have a quick point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Could you help us understand this, Mr. Chair? Maybe through you to the members who are on the list, could we get an idea of whether we're going to get through that speaking list today, or before May 7--just some idea? Some of us have real work to do, and there is always the possibility of substitution for members, because there is real work to do.

If Mr. Watson is going to lecture us about the Magna Carta, many of us who have been through law school don't need that.

Can you get a sense, from the members on the other side or the list of those next to speak, of how long they intend to filibuster?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty, actually you're the third speaker, so I could ask you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Who are they?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have Mr. Watson, Mr. Warawa, and then you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How long do you think they will—