Evidence of meeting #38 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Chair, it's becoming incredibly obvious, or increasingly obvious to me, that the Liberal-Bloc Québécois-NDP coalition that's not a coalition is increasingly trying to stifle debate on this. They've played their cards. They've tipped their hand.
We see from the briefs that have come in here...and I'd be more than happy to go back and read those into the record. I don't know how much time we have, but I think a good portion of them already have been discussed from the various witness testimonies that we've heard.
The reality that's before us--
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Well, I don't know; I think it is. You can judge, Chair.
This idea that there's an agreement among the parties--
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
--to support this bill is false. I mean, we're all presenting amendments. I can't say that I agree with the amendments of the other parties. I've looked at some of them, and some of them I don't agree with.
It might be possible that the government would be in agreement with an amendment that I intend to bring. There could be all kinds of voting lines here.
So I really take offence to the fact that Mr. Calkins is prejudging so much that will happen if we go ahead with this bill. As a matter of fact, if we just go ahead with the clause-by-clause, we'll see what we end up with.
I think the government members are prejudging everything. They're prejudging that the bill can't be changed, they're prejudging how everyone else is going to vote, and I just don't think that's fair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
And we can't reflect on the motion at hand.
I have, on this point of order, Mr. Blaney, Mr. Woodworth, and Monsieur Bigras.
On the point of order, Monsieur Blaney.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me a chance to speak. It has to do with the point of order raised by my colleague across the way, Mr. Scarpaleggia.
First of all, I do not think it is a point of order. It is actually a point of debate, and the three parties across the way have all taken the same position in that debate. A dilatory motion was just moved a few moments ago, and I think it is safe to talk about a coalition in this case, in light of the events so far.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
If we, as a party, were to vote in concert with other members, either from the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, as has been known to happen in the past, we could rightly point to a coalition. My colleague is being interrupted even though he is in the process of making an extremely well-organized political argument.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I think the word “coalition” is entirely appropriate. The Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP voted together, preventing parliamentarians from voicing their opinions on a crucial motion, which as I mentioned, undermines the very foundation of Canada's environmental regime. Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Regarding Mr. Scarpaleggia's point of order, I think Mr. Calkins was talking about, when he referred to the combined and concerted action of the opposition members, the attempts to shut down debate that we've observed thus far, including the unanimous support from the opposition of Ms. Duncan's motion for “closure”--I guess that's what I'll call it--to stop debate on Mr. Warawa's motion, and including as well this tactic that the opposition seems to have adopted of raising endless points of order in order to interrupt and slow down the debate.
I might say also that it's interesting that since Mr. Blaney has arrived, we've seen a new tactic from the Bloc members, which is that they heckle Mr. Blaney and try to prevent him from being able to speak freely.
So I think it is that concerted effort to somehow shut down debate on this bill that Mr. Calkins was referring to as a coalition effort.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Monsieur Bigras, on this point of order.
I'm starting to think this isn't very much of a point of order, but go ahead and debate here the process.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, we do not see this kind of motion very often. If there are people on your list who want to contribute to a debate, normally the debate carries on. As for Ms. Duncan's motion, I was under the impression that she was trying to end the current sitting. In that event, we would resume the debate at the next meeting. Usually, we call that filibustering in the government's case. It is pretty rare to put an end to filibustering in this manner. You ruled that the motion was in order, and I will remember that. Since I plan to be here for a few more years yet, I might be able to use that tactic every now and again.
Essentially, the motion before us right now is trying to do the same thing as the motion that was previously moved and discussed. On the same point of order, it seems to me that the spirit of the motion before us, which was ruled in order, is basically identical to what was put forward earlier, in other words, that we put a time limit on the study of this bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll just say that, as I already ruled, the motion is in order. Chapter 20 of O'Brien and Bosc says:
The Standing Orders state that standing committees have the power to order the production of papers and records, another privilege rooted in the Constitution that is delegated by the House. In carrying out their responsibility to conduct studies and inquiries, standing committees often have to rely on a wide array of papers to aid them in their work.
Essentially what we're saying is that they want additional briefs and to hear additional witnesses, so this motion is in order.
As to the tactics being used, I'm not going to start censoring freedom of speech around here--although my mother used to have a saying that almost applies in this situation: “You kids are driving me crazy.”
Conservative
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I'm glad to get back. I appreciate the good spirits around the table. We've got into a little bit of a situation here in front of the committee that we don't normally find ourselves in. But I think everybody is still working with the best intent of moving forward.
Frankly, Chair, the reason I moved the motion is because it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that this bill, based on the testimony I've seen, based on the submissions I've seen, and based on the numbers of amendments that have been put forward, is a major undertaking.
As I said earlier, most private members' bills are usually one or two clauses. They make a tweak to existing legislation. This bill, in and of itself, is a major undertaking that affects almost every aspect of how the Government of Canada administers itself, runs itself in the adjudication, and basically puts itself out there in terms of managing the environment, managing the economy, and so on.
I had folks from Alberta in my office here in Ottawa last week, from a responsible company, Capital Power, and they weren't even aware that this legislation existed or what the ramifications were. They have a great project in my riding, Genesee 3. They're building Genesee 4. They were talking about emissions-free, coal-fired electrical generation. I guess others around this table might not consider that responsible. I guess we're going to go back to the days when we rode on bikes, whittled out of wood with a bone knife. Anybody who does anything different, as far as I'm concerned, is using energy, which is what this bill is intending to target.
Notwithstanding that, I think Albertans particularly are starting to wake up to the potential economic devastation this bill would have in its current form. We've already heard from just a handful of witnesses. We have a handful of briefs here and already we have over 30 proposed amendments to this legislation, based on that handful.
The sponsor of the bill herself has said that it's too bad there wasn't time for first nations to prepare and come and speak to clause 4 and the various other clauses of this bill that affect land, I believe the definitions clause. And there are other parts of the bill that address first nations or aboriginal people's issues.
I do believe that other organizations, once they start to realize the fact that the opposition parties.... I don't know; there is no other word in English for a pact between people to basically concoct a certain outcome than “coalition”. I don't mean that as a negative or a derogatory word. It's just the way it is. I mean, they're working towards this. They want to stop the debate on the motion.
I think we were probably a couple of minutes away from actually voting on that motion if we could have actually had an opportunity to vote on it. But you know what? If the intention of the opposition is to stifle debate now and to basically bring this bill back before Parliament in its current form or in a form that's not acceptable and in as hurried a fashion as possible, before we've had a full airing of all of the potential consequences of this particular legislation, I think it's irresponsible.
So that's why I moved the motion, Mr. Chair. I would have moved the motion regardless, had we had an opportunity to vote. This is of particular serious consequence to Canadians. It's of particular serious consequence to our economy at a time when Canada is just recovering and is in a fragile state, and when the rest of the world is still basically in economic upheaval. To throw this bill into the mix at this particular point in time is frustrating.
I want to hear from more people; I want to hear from more stakeholders. The proponent of the legislation talks about how the public doesn't have enough input into the process of permits and so on. Well, I would argue that she's trying to close debate so they don't have enough input into this proposed legislation.
You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman, and that's why I will be supporting this motion.
Thank you.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I heard Ms. Duncan say that she supports hearing from more witnesses--I think....
She's shaking her head no. That's unfortunate. I thought I heard her say that if more people are presenting testimony in written form, then...and referred to the hearing from first nations. So I'm disappointed. I thought there was consensus or agreement to hear from witnesses.
I think it's very important to hear from more witnesses. I was quite shocked that there was a procedural manoeuvre used by members across the way. It was well organized. They had their meeting on the side, and they came here prepared to gag and stifle healthy debate as soon as they got a chance.
They used the word “filibuster” when we are sharing what Canadians, what business, and what industry have shared. There are huge concerns across this country, including in Quebec.
I'm glad that we have Mr. Blaney here, standing up for Quebec. What would happen if the Bloc had its way? I shudder to think.
Do we need to hear from more witnesses? Absolutely. Canadians have now heard of what Bill C-469 would do.
Chair, we heard from Michael Broad of the Shipping Federation of Canada. What did he say in November? Well, he said that they can easily foresee clause--