Evidence of meeting #39 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
So Mr. Warawa is now asking that the bill essentially just be....
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
NDP
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
A lot of people have taken the time to come in to speak to this bill. Different people have different positions on the bill. There have been considerable efforts on the behalf of some members of this committee on the other side to open up the hearings and to drag out the review by not going to clause-by-clause.
I feel very strongly that a good number of the members of this committee, having heard the witnesses, have taken time to consider the bill, to consider the testimony, and to prepare amendments, which are to be tabled before the committee. As a courtesy to the witnesses and to the efforts of the members of the committee, I think we should proceed to consider the amendments proposed.
I would agree that we should move forward and vote on their motion, but I feel very strongly that I want to recognize everything we've heard from people and the work done by members of the committee.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
December 1st, 2010 / 3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I just want to very quickly make some points that I was prevented from making when we had the closure motion by Ms. Duncan the other day, just to review some of the things that I think Ms. Duncan has mischaracterized in her comments on this motion.
First of all, I have not heard, as she suggested, any criticism from this side of any member for making amendments. It's very clear that the criticism around amendments related to the fact that they disclosed the utter deficiency of this bill. In saying that there are so many amendments, I didn't hear anyone criticizing those who moved the amendments. But I'm simply pointing out that the reason for so many amendments is that it's a little like clearing the Augean stables to get this bill fixed up in some format.
Secondly, Ms. Duncan, in her comments the other day on this motion, suggested that the members on this side liked what we heard from industry. That is a mischaracterization. There is nothing in it about liking or disliking, but rather about taking seriously what we heard almost unanimously from industry and developers and hydro-power agencies, and the like. Whether we like it or not, their evidence is quite significant and ought to be taken seriously.
Also, the other day, I believe Ms. Duncan said...and this is one of the disadvantages of having had that closure motion foisted upon us: it's hard to keep track of the various arguments that have been made. I believe Ms. Duncan said the other day that under this bill the government's right to revise regulations is subject to democratic governance, and that this bill is not retrospective and therefore there will be no uncertainty, as some of the witnesses have alleged.
I just want to point out that in fact this bill does give the courts considerable authority to revise regulations completely outside of democratic governance, and in fact to do so retrospectively, in the sense that the court can go back and revoke permits that might have been otherwise validly granted by the government or an agency. Therefore, it can in fact undo years of development that might have occurred prior to the court application. I think that's a key point and a very serious one.
So it is necessary for us to take into account these very real pitfalls that fatally flaw the bill.
I should say also that I take exception to the comments of Ms. Duncan today, in which she suggested that somehow the members on this side were trying to keep us from clause-by-clause. In point of fact, I don't think I have ever seen a debate, even in this committee, which is, by the way, notorious around the Hill for having difficulties, in which there were so many points of order raised, one after the other.
Mr. Chair, they were almost all raised by the members opposite with a view to trying to interrupt, intimidate, and otherwise keep government members from raising legitimate points in this debate. I would say, particularly when Ms. Duncan came up with her closure motion, that it's apparent to me that if there's a book around here on how to stall and mess up committee hearings, clearly the opposition has gotten hold of it and is reading from it play by play. I think that in fact we are simply trying to raise clear points.
I have other comments and will wait for further debate to speak to them.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay. A lot of people...?
Well, I'll be very brief, because I don't want to prolong this. But I'm looking at two motions from the Conservative members, right here in front of me, and they are contradictory. One wants to--
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
The one before us is contradictory to the one that was--
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Could you explain what the parameters are here, Chair?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We need to be relevant to the motion before us, Mr. Warawa's motion.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay. What I would say is that I think it's important that we go clause-by-clause. I really and truly sincerely want to examine the meaning of each clause. I don't think anyone--on the Liberal side anyway--wants to create legal chaos for industry. We understand that it's important for industry to have certainty. I really want to explore each clause one at a time to see if all that has been said about the potential negative effects of this bill is correct--or not.
It may be that we get to a point where we need more information than has been supplied through the written briefs that have been submitted in the last few days. It may be that we decide in the middle of clause-by-clause that we need an extra witness to tell us about something or other. I really think it goes against the democratic spirit to try to suppress this bill without even going to clause-by-clause. I want to get into the meat of the bill and discuss it, so I will obviously be voting against Mr. Warawa's motion.
