Environment Committee on Nov. 24th, 2010

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I've almost forgotten what I was going to say.

One thing that troubles me, Mr. Chair, is that I don't think it's fair also to impugn things on the witnesses who appeared. A couple of the witnesses were asked if they had helped to draft my bill--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You're on a different point.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It was his argument in response, and I just wanted to clarify that we should also not be impugning witnesses or suggesting things that they didn't have the chance to clarify or they have clarified and it's contrary.

The thing I also want to clarify is that it's my understanding that it's the custom of the place where we practise our art of law-making that when the bills go to committee, and even are even passed at second reading, in many cases they're passed in principle, and many of the members who allow the bill to go to committee may have suggestions for changes they want to make.

So I think it's improper to impugn that there is complete support or to have no anticipation that they may want to improve the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I don't think anyone, including Mr. Warawa, would like to impugn anyone else's motives.

Second, I recognize that the use of the term “coalition” has, in this minority Parliament, taken on a certain partisan colour. I mean, ordinarily the word coalition--

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

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're still speaking to this point of order.

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

It's not a point of order.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's to the point of order not about an accusation that Mr. Warawa was out of order because he's used the word “coalition” and has impugned the motives of the others. What I'm trying to say is that, ordinarily, coalition simply means a group of people who come together to support the same cause.

Of course, in this Parliament, because of the events in the House, that has taken on a more partisan meaning involving the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP voting together to pursue certain shared goals. Indeed there are times when occasionally an opposition party has voted with the government, and I hear shouts from across the way from people who lose votes talking about a Conservative such-and-such coalition.

So it's clearly a partisan term. In a way, it would be nice if we lived in a world where every time a partisan term was used, we could raise a point of order. But whatever we think of partisan terms, I don't think it's necessarily the proper subject for a ruling on a point of order.

Quite frankly, if it were the case that we were going to outlaw partisan terms, just in relation to this debate I'd be objecting, because lots of other times when partisan remarks have been made I've been the target. We should have an even application of these rules.

So whatever we think of partisan terms, I don't think it's a matter of a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm getting ready to make my ruling.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Chair, if we can just move on to something else.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. I'll make my ruling, and it's going to be twofold.

First I'd read from chapter 3, O'Brien and Bosc, page 99, as follows:

As Speaker Milliken noted in 2003: Speakers discourage members of Parliament from using names in speeches if they are speaking ill of some other person because, with parliamentary privilege applying to what they say, anything that is damaging to the reputation or to the individual, … is then liable to be published with the cover of parliamentary privilege and the person is unable to bring any action in respect of those claims.

We don't want to name individuals, so if Mr. Warawa was naming a particular member, then it would be out of order.

However, it says on page 93, under “Importance of Freedom of Speech”, the following:

Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make. This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House. Under it, Members are able to make statements or allegations about outside bodies or persons, which they may hesitate to make without the protection of privilege. Though this is often criticized, the freedom to make allegations which the Member genuinely believes at the time to be true, or at least worthy of investigation, is fundamental. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its Members are able to speak and criticize without having to account to any outside body. There would be no freedom of speech if everything had to be proven true before it were uttered. In a ruling on a question of privilege in 1984, Speaker Bosley affirmed that “the privilege of a Member of Parliament when speaking in the House or in a committee is absolute, and that it would be very difficult to find that any statement made under the cloak of parliamentary privilege constituted a violation of that privilege.”

So based on that ruling, I'm going to allow Mr. Warawa to continue, as long as he is respectful in his comments and not naming individual members and demeaning an individual member's reputation. But he does have the freedom and the right to speak, and I believe the word “coalition” is in order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I am not attempting to impugn anyone's reputation. As I said before, I respect each of my colleagues across the way. I just don't agree with them together supporting a very bad bill, a bill that would hurt Canada, a bill that would hurt Canada retroactively.

We heard from the witnesses that every existing facility, facilities like Hydro-Québec, an action could be taken against them--facilities that are permitted, after billions have been invested into facilities, after years and years.... I believe in the testimony the figure of about 14 years was used in terms of actually seeing a facility built.

During those 14 years there were consultations, involving meeting with first nations, meeting with scientists, meeting with ENGOs, meeting with other governments, and then making their proposals. After years and years of having it be critiqued, then there was the cost to actually construct the facilities. And to see all of that being jeopardized....

Again, Mr. Chair, without any attempt to impugn anybody, I am baffled by how members of the Bloc...not the individuals I see across the way, whom I respect. It's the position; they are a part of the Bloc Québecois, and how they would support a piece of legislation that could attack the very foundation of Quebec....

I'm so glad that we have the member beside me--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Point of order, Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe that the parliamentary secretary should stick to the point and avoid naming opposition members. As a matter of fact, I wonder why he is inpugning the motives of opposition members since we have not even had the opportunity to put our motions on the floor. The only thing he knows is the result of the vote on second reading. Could you ask him to stick to the content of his motion?

Mr. Chair, is the parliamentary secretary wants to play this kind of game, we could raise points of order each time we feel our rights are being trampled. You are the protector of our rights and we rely on you to make sure they are respected. It is your responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Right, but in the process, I also have to respect his right to freedom of speech. I will censor if I feel that he crosses that line.

Mr. Warawa, I ask that you be respectful in your comments. Continue on.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I will make every attempt to be respectful.

I expect the Bloc to be supporting this because of the way they have voted and spoken to this point. Now, if I am getting indications from my colleagues across the way--which, again, I respect--and they are hinting that they are going to be opposing this, then good on them. But to this point that hasn't happened. I hope that wisdom will prevail, that they will stand up for Quebec, and that they will vote against this.

We are going to have a vote very soon on this motion. The right thing to do is to kill the bill. Who said that? Well, every speaker, every witness that came to this committee, including the Canadian hydroelectricity association.... They were asked if the bill should be amended. They had recommendations, but they were asked if the bill should be killed or should be amended.

Mr. Chair, the blues will show that it was you who asked that question. I think it's a relevant question. Just at the end of their testimony, that's what you asked them: do you want to see this bill amended or do you want to see it killed?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It was “set aside”.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, “set aside”--and set aside is what my motion is doing.

So those were your words--should the bill be set aside or amended--and they said, well, preferably it should be set aside. That was the ideal.

Why is that? Because every witness, other than the NGOs, said—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm fine with letting him go on and on, Mr. Chair, but on a point of order, the member is misrepresenting the testimony. It's one thing to say, and that's fine, some witnesses suggested they wouldn't accept the bill unless there were substantial changes, and even then they wouldn't. But it is completely misrepresenting the testimony we heard to say that all of the witnesses asked us to kill the bill.

I don't really understand the point where Mr. Warawa is going. If he's almost finished, maybe we can actually discuss his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chair, I fully agree with Mrs. Duncan. That is not what the Canadian Hydroelectric Association told us in committee. On the contrary, they said that there should be some restrictions.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Chair, that is not the point of order.

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

Start by putting your name on the list...