Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth is next, and then Monsieur Bigras.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm somewhat on the horns of a dilemma because, quite frankly, I enjoy and appreciate listening to Ms. Murray's interventions. Whether or not I agree with them, I think she expresses herself clearly, and actually, I find that she and I at least speak the same language.

The problem is that when Ms. Murray says things that I believe are not accurate or are not well placed, I have an option. I can just sit here and take it silently, or I can speak up and try to make the point that she may not be perceiving things at least the way I do, if not, perhaps, correctly. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think it's my duty as a legislator and a conscientious member of Parliament to speak up and see if we can have a dialogue. And who knows? Maybe we can try to achieve some understanding, if not today, then over time.

Just to begin with, to give you an elementary example, I know that it was not deliberate of Ms. Murray to do this, but in point of fact, when speaking to the amendment that is before us, she spent most of her time talking about the main motion before--I think--she finally said that she would support the amendment and that it might be appropriate to do this on a per-member basis rather than a per-party basis. Now, that point she could have made in 60 seconds. The rest was good to hear, but it really didn't have to do with the amendment. It had to do with the main motion.

Now, we all do that, and it's very difficult to discipline ourselves not to mix things up in that way. I'm not trying to be too critical, but I'm saying that this is an example of why we need a little bit of leeway in our discussions.

Regarding Ms. Murray's suggestion that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about a motion limiting debate to five minutes per party as being undemocratic, I'd like to quote from former Speaker Fraser. These are comments he made on April 14, 1987, and I think this quote is germane. I'm honestly not trying to elongate things. He said:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

So we might disagree about how long it takes to make reasonable points, but I don't think I would disagree with Speaker Fraser that it's a democratic thing to give people reasonable time. Conversely, if we think that five minutes per party is not reasonable time, I don't think it's wrong or inappropriate to say that it is an undemocratic measure.

With respect to Ms. Murray's comments that the Conservatives have raised a plethora of procedural tactics, quite frankly, you know, if Ms. Murray wanted to say that the Conservatives have taken too long to explain their point of view, that would be a legitimate thing to say, but I can't think of a single procedural tactic that the Conservatives have raised. We had a motion at the outset to set aside the debate on this whole bill, and that seems like an appropriate time to make such a motion. And then along the way, Mr. Calkins moved a motion that we should hear from more witnesses, but I don't think one can say that these are procedural tactics.

What I would describe as procedural tactics are the continued points of order that have come not just from the NDP member but from other parties as well. I would include the heckling that has gone on from across the table here as a procedural tactic to shut down debate. I would include the procedural tactic of adjourning debate. I have been here two years. I've never seen that done, and I'm sure that the opposition must have a handbook out there on procedural tactics to shut down debate.

So my point of view is completely different from that of Ms. Murray. I think it has been the opposition, not the Conservatives members, who have been adopting tactics.

By the way, when I say that, I realize that I'm guilty of a misstatement, and it's one that I often dislike when it's applied to me. I shouldn't really say “the opposition”. I should say “some members of”. Even if Ms. Murray wanted to say that some members of the Conservative Party have done this or that, that to me would be a more respectful way of putting it than to put everybody together in the same basket, because we are all here as individuals, and some of us, me included, I hope, are genuinely trying to have a debate.

Along the same lines, on Ms. Murray's comments about disrespect, if there is disrespect shown at this table, it certainly is not limited to the Conservative Party. There is plenty of that going around. I have to tell you that from my perspective on this side of the table, it is mainly coming from opposite me, but not from every member opposite me.

I just wanted to make those points in response to what Ms. Murray had to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll go to Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will not take as much time as my government colleagues, but I can tell you that what we are hearing today is far from helpful.

As Mr. Warawa saw fit to quote from his encyclopedia, let me quote in turn from my dictionary. The definition of “dilatory“ is “describes an action intended to delay the outcome of a trial or the passage of a piece of legislation…“.

That is exactly why we have Ms. Duncan's motion before us today. Mr. Warawa is a gentleman, as, generally, all hon. members are. The problem is that those hon. members are falling in line with their party's petty strategy, as we have seen in recent sessions. This committee of Parliament is becoming less a forum for debate and change and more a partisan tool.

For two sessions—Mr. Benoît was not here to comment on the other sessions—Mr. Warawa has monopolized the time in order to talk about one single clause. if that does not meet the dictionary definition of “dilatory“ that I just quoted, I don't know what does.

In my opinion, each party's time must be limited. We want to work on, and possibly amend, the bill. The way to move the work forward is to limit the time.

In the last two years, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has in fact been noted for its endless study of the matters referred to it. The tar sands study and the Species at Risk Act are examples, and we are now doing the same thing with Bill C-469. And it's not the opposition that has decided to delay our work.

So I think we have to limit the time provided to each political party. That is why we are going to support Ms. Duncan's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I didn't want to interrupt my colleague across the way while he was talking. I appreciate his comments.

In the translation, I heard the oil sands being referred to as “the tar sands”. Is that a term the translators are using or is it a term Mr. Bigras used?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That I would not be able to tell you.

Was it tar sands or oil sands?

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Oil sands.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Oil sands?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. So we have no other people speaking to the amendment. We are voting on the amendment to take out “recognized political party” and put in “member” instead. With that, I will call the vote.

(Amendment negatived)

That is defeated, so we're back to the main motion.

Mr. Woodworth, you have the floor.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The place where I will begin is to mention that there are I think around 28 clauses in this bill, or something in that order, and they are not all equal. Clause 3, for example, is nine lines long, but it is preceded by a rather controversial and dangerous preamble, and it contains five very meaty concepts, some of which have never been seen before in Canadian law. I would find five minutes entirely insufficient to discuss that clause.

Then, when we address clause 2, for example, it actually defines 16 terms. As compared with the nine lines in clause 3, it is 152 lines long and packed full of concepts that in many cases are new to Canadian law. It seems to me beyond belief that we would, at any point, be able to have a discussion of these kinds of important, novel—extraordinarily novel—provisions in the space of 20 minutes and, indeed, to have any give-and-take or back and forth or potential for coming to any conclusions. It would be enormously difficult.

We might compare that with clause 7, which is only two lines long, which of course would probably not even require five minutes of debate.

I guess what I'm trying to say, Mr. Chair, is that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate, in the first place, to deal with a bill of this nature. I think we have to take our responsibilities seriously as members of Parliament, and I just can't conceive how some of these matters could be debated in five minutes.

I would like to say a little more about the motion at large, but rather than doing so, I will simply focus on the point I've raised at the outset: that five minutes per party are simply not feasible for discussing matters as important, as weighty, as complicated, and as novel as those contained in this bill. So I would like move an amendment to the motion. I'll put it as succinctly as I can and move that we replace the words “five minutes per recognized political party” with the words “10 minutes per member”.

My comments to this point, I will apply in support of that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

So you've moving an amendment to change it to read “10 minutes per member” versus “five minutes per recognized party”?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That is what I was trying to do earlier, but it was ruled out of order as a subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Right. It was, but I'll accept it as an amendment.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You may speak to that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I won't really say any more about it, in that I've already mentioned the chief reasons.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

There's a point of order by Mr. Bigras.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

It seems to me that we have already decided that each member will get five minutes. This new amendment tries to give each member ten minutes. We have already decided on the amount of time; this is trying to increase it.

If the hon. member were to propose three minutes per member, I might perhaps be in favour. But here he is proposing more time that the committee has already agreed on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. The amendment is in order. If you wish to move that as a subamendment, you can when you get the floor.

With that, I have—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was going to speak to the point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Right. But the amendment is in order, because we are changing it. It's a different philosophy.

With that, I have Mr. Blaney, Mr. Warawa, and then Mr. Benoit.

We're talking to the amendment that proposes 10 minutes per member.

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

Mr. Chair, I will show you that I am perfectly capable of making my point in two minutes.

I am astounded to see that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are preventing the members of this committee from expressing their opinion on such an important bill.

In fact, it directly affects 280,000 jobs, and 200 companies in Quebec and 26 associations are concerned by the vague nature of some provisions in the bill before us, by the excessive powers given to the courts and by the major legal uncertainly which may well be the result.

Mr. Chair, it is important for us to take the time we need and not to rush through such an important task. Of course I will be supporting Mr. Woodworth's motion, but I am appealing to members' common sense. Earth to the hon. members opposite! This bill has important consequences and this is not the time to be playing administrative games, as you might say.

Rather, it is the time to come to grips with the issue and the time for members to be able to speak on each of the clauses, especially the ones that are devastating and harmful in the extreme, in the words of the Canadian Hydropower Association.

So it is really important for members to show some guts, you might say, and demand to be properly heard on a bill of such significance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Benoit, and then Mr. Warawa.