Environment Committee on April 9th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You know I can't ask that question, and we have gone down this road before. Each person has unlimited time to speak.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can I ask the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No. Basically there's no answer to that question. I can't ask each person on this list. We have a speaking list. You know that people are going to speak as long as they want to for that motion.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I can tell you now that I'll speak for less than two minutes, sir.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

They can answer if they want to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I don't believe anybody wants to answer, so I'm going back to Mr. Watson, please.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's very telling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the member opposite by saying “Stay tuned”.

Mr. Chair, when we talk about the importance of freedom of speech and rules, I don't think the member opposite would ever suggest that his brother, who is the Premier of Ontario, shouldn't have the same rights and privileges as well. That's what our system is based on. These are important things—as if the rights of one aren't the rights of all.

We were talking about the institutions of Parliament and the importance of rules and how the “two minutes per speaker per clause” motion ignores the importance of rules. We were illustrating it with the discussion of how rules apply in Parliament. I said earlier, Mr. Chair—just in summation, so that I can get back to where I was—before we talked about the Standing Orders, that we talked about rules existing at committee.

Those rules are to facilitate debate. Our rules, for example, don't allow for the calling of a question until such time as debate has been exhausted. That is in defence of freedom of speech. It is a very important rule that we have. It helps to establish and maintain order when we debate matters.

There's no levity to this particular issue, Mr. Chair. We take these things very seriously, because they're fundamental.

You alluded to a speakers list. We allow that to be replenished so that we have a fullness of debate, Mr. Chair. Two minutes per speaker per clause is a bad motion. It goes against the whole idea of the importance of rules, even at this particular table, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to bring this around to my third point, then, Mr. Chair. This is a bad motion not only with respect to its draconian limits to free speech and to the fact that it doesn't recognize the foundational importance of free speech—that's a debate—to the passage of laws and the functioning of relationships within society; it's a bad motion because it ignores the rules and the importance of rules. But thirdly, this is a bad motion—two minutes per speaker per clause—because it doesn't allow us the ability to speak without inhibition or to express our opinions and elaborate upon them sufficiently.

For example, Mr. Speaker, two minutes per speaker per clause isn't enough time to talk about the bill's fundamental flaws and to spell out how dangerous this particular bill is and what it means to working families in transition to the green economy. Two minutes is not nearly enough time to elaborate on that, Mr. Chair. Two minutes per speaker per clause doesn't allow members the opportunity to talk about the profound impacts of this particular bill, Mr. Chair.

This bill has some very profound effects. Let's start with the government; it has profound effects on the government. It attempts, for example, Mr. Chair—something I wouldn't be able to say in two minutes per speaker per clause—from the opposition side of the House to intrude into the prerogatives of the crown within our system, setting the policy direction, setting limits that ultimately will affect the fiscal framework of the government, and to do so without quantifying the costs that will arise from any of the particular measures contained within the clauses, let alone the overall impact to the Treasury, from the bill's full implementation.

Further to that, Mr. Chair, two minutes per speaker per clause isn't enough to elaborate how the opposition intends to force an exorbitant cost on the government without bearing the responsibility for that cost.

Mr. Chair, it will be very clear that when the significant impacts bore down to the human level that those impacts will be enacted by the government, not by the opposition. Therefore, the blame for job loss or the other social ills that result will be levelled at the government and not the opposition. This is the most irresponsible kind of government possible. Two minutes per speaker per clause doesn't allow sufficient time, Mr. Chair, to even begin to elaborate on issues like this.

It doesn't allow enough time, for example, as we noted in our last meeting when we looked at the effects of one particular aspect of clause 10--this just transition fund--and what that would mean. Two minutes per speaker per clause is not nearly enough time. As it turned out, that presentation took about an hour and ten minutes, or maybe an hour and twenty minutes, to elaborate. Those are three words within a clause within the entire bill, Mr. Chair.

There are very significant things contained in this bill with very significant impacts. Two minutes per speaker per clause is just not enough time to talk about, for example, issues that aren't contained in the bill but should be contained in the bill.

Two minutes per speaker per clause doesn't allow us to elaborate on measures the government is taking and to be able to compare those to the measures that are being proposed within the bill itself. Two minutes doesn't even begin to allow us to open that discussion and air it out fulsomely. The government is taking a number of initiatives. It would take an awful lot of time to elaborate on them, certainly more than two minutes per speaker per clause.

As well, two minutes per speaker is not sufficient time to begin to bore into the witness testimony and the evidence that we've heard. We've had a number of witnesses appear at this committee table. We've had climate change scientists. Our Canadian scientist who participated in the UNIPCC's fourth assessment report did some very valuable work and presented a wealth of information to this committee. Two minutes wouldn't even begin to unpack the discussion we had there. That's important testimony.

We didn't just have scientists, Mr. Chair; we had economists who appeared here. We had a panel of businesses and economists who themselves presented testimony. Two minutes isn't sufficient to begin to unpack the numbers, for example, by Mr. Sawyer, who appeared before this committee and said that this bill could have some very serious costs. It could have some very serious regional impacts. In his terminology, it could have some very significant competitiveness impacts for industries. These are all incredibly important things, Mr. Chair, that two minutes is simply not sufficient time to begin to explore.

We had evidence as well from environmental groups here. It's important testimony as well that they bring in terms of their perspective to the issue at hand, their thoughts and their opinions. Mr. Chair, two minutes wouldn't begin to assess and evaluate the impact of what their testimony is all about and how it bears on this particular bill.

Mr. Chair, we had constitutional experts, who got into some very important issues. We had jurisdictional issues covered here, the impacts between federal and provincial governments, which are very foundational to our Confederation. Two minutes is not nearly enough time to begin to unpack how unconstitutional the bill is, why it is, and all the things that we heard from the constitutional experts.

Mr. Chair, why is it important to begin to explore the witnesses' testimony? It is because we need to begin to evaluate whether this bill hits the mark or not. The discussion about that, which we're having at clause-by-clause consideration, has to take more than two minutes. You simply can't do it in two minutes per speaker. The ability to evaluate....

We know the bill doesn't hit the mark per se. Do the amendments hit the mark? Those things have to be evaluated. That's why we have our witnesses here; otherwise, it's just a show to have witnesses if the opposition simply wants to present a bill, enforce its will, try to cut off debate, and simply ram legislation through. That would be a mockery of the witnesses who appeared here. So it's important that we have sufficient time--and two minutes per speaker, Mr. Chair, is simply not enough time to do that.

Our system is a good system. When we function according to the rules, when we respect freedom of speech, the system works extremely well. We are set apart from others at the end of the day by doing things the right way and by not simply imposing the will of the majority. It is the right thing to do, because in civil democracies, Mr. Chair, we engage with words, and not with physical force. It's what separates us from others.

It's entirely foundational. This is not peripheral stuff here. It's why I'm not ashamed, Mr. Chair.... I've said before at this meeting, in front of a microphone, that I'm not ashamed to exercise my full privileges in speaking to this motion or any other motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we're going to have the government carry on this filibuster, they should at least talk about climate change and this particular bill. If it would be of any assistance to the government, in order to allow us to get somewhere and allow these poor suffering folks who have shown up to this meeting to talk about the environment and hear the government filibuster on that, I will withdraw my motion and allow the government to begin their filibuster on climate change so we can hear what terrible plans they have for this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have to have a unanimous decision to withdraw it at this point, Mr. Cullen--

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

This would provide progress, I believe, would it not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

--and we would then move to clause 10. It would have to be unanimous, and we don't have that.

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

I believe it was indicated by the government that they would rather filibuster before the filibuster and delay before the delay. I'm offering an opportunity to get back to the bill so that we can talk about the environment and climate change at the environment committee. What a novel idea.

We could finish this thing. I would withdraw this motion to allow us to get back to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

We are in a motion, and that motion is the one that we started the debate on. Only with unanimous consent can we--

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

It's unbelievable. I believe I can withdraw my own motion, can I not, Chair?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let's see if there is consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You cannot when it's under debate.

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

Just to be crystal clear, the government is going to continue wasting time on a motion--

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

--and then waste time on the actual bill Mr. Layton has put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, as you know, you made the motion. The motion was to restrict time limits to two minutes. That's what we're debating. I've been listening to Mr. Watson--

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

You're the only one.