Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support this amendment to the motion, although again I don't know whether I would support the motion as amended. There's still the issue of allocating time, but we'll speak to that later.

It seems to me that this amendment would at least bring the debate somewhat into line with the way things happen in the House of Commons. Even when time allocation is brought in place in the House of Commons, I believe the normal speaking rotations apply. From my memory and knowledge, that's the case.

The speaking allocations in the House in fact are based on the number of members per party in the House, so they roughly reflect the per member presence in the House. Yet without this amendment, we'd have something quite different here at committee. All of a sudden you would have at committee a situation where each party is treated as equal.

Again on this proposed amendment, I just wonder how the Bloc members or the Liberal members could go back to their constituents and say that they agreed to a motion that would give the three of them the same speaking time as one member of the New Democratic Party, and three in the case of the Liberal Party, especially on an issue as important as an environmental issue. I think they'd have a hard time explaining that to their constituents.

When they're considering whether or not to support this amendment, I think they should really consider that and reflect upon how they may or may not be able to defend their actions here to their constituents. I really think they ought to take some time and think about that.

Certainly, if I were to go to my constituents at election time and say that when it came to this important environmental discussion, I agreed to a motion that gave me maybe one-sixth the speaking time of the NDP member, my constituents would be very unhappy about it. It's something that in good conscience I couldn't support and that in good conscience my constituents would question me on. I really wonder whether I'd be their MP if I were to support this kind of position.

Now the members across are laughing--some of them, not all. I don't want to reflect.... They know that issues dealt with at committee quite often never get back to our constituents, but even if that were the case, I still think they should really reflect on the fairness of this and how they would explain it should it get back to their constituents.

Mr. Chair, I would just say that I support this amendment, but I'd still have the same problem I had with the last amendment. I still don't see how I could support the motion even if it were amended in this fashion. I'll certainly consider it. I'll listen to the debate on this amendment and reach a conclusion after I hear the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was contemplating this issue, I realized that some of the comments I would like to make regarding the motion apply to the amendment also. I got a little concerned in thinking about it in that if I didn't put my hand up and make them now, in fact, there might be some procedural tactic employed to shut down debate on the motion later, and I won't get my chance to make these comments.

So because my comments really apply overall to the question of how much time we should spend debating Bill C-469, I'm going to make them now.

I'll mention that I've now sat on this committee for well over two lovely and enjoyable years, and I cannot think of any time in the last two years or so when we have been faced with a motion like this to shut down and limit debate.

Historically, we have had a lot of lengthy debates on this committee. There were many times when I might have wished that I could shut down debate, but it would never have occurred to me to do that, because I do respect the right of members and in fact the duty of members to speak their mind. In fact, I don't think that in the two years that I've sat on this committee I have ever seen a Conservative member move for a limitation of debate.

I think the question has to be asked: why now? Why, after two years of considering a great many important bills, like Bill C-311--not important because I agreed with it, but important because of the consequences it would have inflicted on our country--like the SARA study, and like the oil sands and water study? During the hours and hours we spent debating those things, never once did anybody suggest that we should limit our comments, presumably because we all wanted to have a full and fair debate that the public could listen in on. I think that's the way that we should operate.

So why now would the NDP member want to stop debate on her bill? Is it because she doesn't want people to know how bad this bill really is? Is it because she doesn't want some of the problems that are inherent in this bill to be exposed to the light? We have had literally pages and pages of submissions. We have had hours and hours of testimony. Why would the NDP member want to straitjacket our debate at this time, rather than letting people express themselves?

Even when we don't agree with ideas, and in fact especially when we don't agree with ideas, we should let them be heard and let people decide for themselves. If you don't, if you try to shut down debate, if you try to hide the facts and opinions, you leave yourself open to the accusation that your bill is flawed because it didn't cover all the bases.

I heard someone say that this is an important bill and that's why we should truncate debate. I would say that it's just the opposite: this bill is so important that we owe it to Canadians to have a full hearing and to take the time to understand what the terms in the bill mean, what the implications are, and what the legal aspects are. It's important because there are jobs at stake. There is development at stake.

I've heard people say that this is just about industry, but the reality is that it's not just industry that will suffer as a result of this bill. There are hunters, there are trappers, there are people who want to build houses, and there are people who want to rehabilitate their land. All of these people are going to be affected by what's in this bill and, quite frankly, they won't know what any of it means because I'm willing to bet that most of the people around this table don't know what most of it means.

I will mention one specific issue that bothers me a lot. Every time I look at this bill, I see something new. When we come to discuss clause 3 of the bill, I'm going to point out that it says this bill has to be interpreted in accordance “with existing and emerging principles of environmental law”. Well, who around this table knows what “emerging principles of environmental law” means? I venture to suggest that the drafter of the bill doesn't know what “emerging principles of environmental law” means.

I'll reserve the rest of my comments...well, actually, I won't have the time. I won't have the time to talk about my concerns, because if this motion passes unamended, at most I will have five minutes to speak for the whole Conservative Party.

So maybe I should just take a moment and say, for example, that I don't know whether that means principles of law that are emerging today when we pass the bill, or principles of law that are emerging when a matter happens to get to court, whether that's five, or ten, or twenty years from now.

I don't know whether it means principles of law that are emerging in Canada or whether it means principles of law that are emerging in North America, or indeed, whether some Hungarian environmentalist can propose a principle and this bill will need to be interpreted in accordance with that. In fact, I don't know whether it means principles of law that are emerging only in the courts or also academically.

It really behooves us as legislators when we pass laws to pass them with sufficient precision such that everybody knows what we mean. And it doesn't even help, quite frankly, if all of us around this table know what we mean, because you have to be able to read a law and know what it means.

I can guarantee you that no one will know what it means when we say, “emerging principles of environmental law”. At the very best, this is what I would describe as a lawyer's nightmare--or maybe it's an environmental lawyer's dream, because that clause can mean whatever you want it to mean.

There's a line from Alice in Wonderland to that effect. I don't know if it was the Red Queen...it might have been Humpty Dumpty who said, “Words mean what I say they do”. The point is that “emerging principles of environmental law” has no meaning and all meaning, and that concerns me.

And as I mentioned a moment ago, every time I put my eye to paper and look at this bill, I see something more like that, which gives me great concern. I have taken a little bit of time to speak about that particular one because if Ms. Duncan's motion passes--in fact, even if it passes with the amendment that I have proposed--there won't be enough time to talk about all of these issues. We would be delinquent, derelict, and shamefully disregarding our duties as legislators.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I move to suspend for five minutes because I think we might be able to work this out off-line.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have a motion to suspend the meeting. All those in favour? Opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're back in session.

Ms. Duncan had the floor.

Do you have any final comments, Ms. Duncan?

We're still working on the amendment. I have Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Scarpaleggia, Mr. Blaney, and Mr. Warawa.

Do you have any final comments, Ms. Duncan?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's my turn?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You had the floor when you asked for suspension.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm willing to pass, move on, and expedite the vote on the amendment and the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll move on.

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, when I asked to speak just now, I knew what I was going to speak about. But I have to tell you that, given the way the meeting is going, I frankly no longer have any idea what I want to say. I apologize, but I still have some comments to make.

First of all, Mr. Chair, the amendment that you accepted, is barely in order, in my view. It is the same as the previous one, with the number of minutes changed. Nevertheless, you accepted it.

What I find most ironic is to hear government members telling the committee to speak up more. I personally do everything in my power to limit my remarks, so that we do not waste time and so that the committee ends up accomplishing something. I find the irony hard to believe.

We can always debate for the sake of debate, but I am not used to that. My training did not teach me to debate just for the pleasure of hearing the sound of my own voice. I am not a lawyer, I am an architect and a university professor. As a professor, I know that you have to make your point quickly because, after three minutes, students are not listening any more and no longer understand what you are saying. It has to be the same for other people too.

People have talked about the democratic principle. Personally, I look at what happens in the House of Commons, where not everyone speaks. Every member from every party does not have to be on their feet for ten minutes talking about a bill. Anyway, the ten minutes is to speak to a bill, which is a bigger subject than speaking to a clause for five minutes. It is also the case that the people who speak are the ones chosen to do so. Why would we not do the same thing in committee?

By the way, no one ever said that each member would have to speak, even for a minute. We just have to pick the best spokesperson, and he or she can speak for five minutes.

So one person from each party would speak for five minutes. We never mentioned dividing up the time. Imagine if we did that in the House. It would mean that, with every member getting one minute to speak, everything would take 368 minutes. It doesn't work like that. I just point out that is no less democratic in the House. Here, each party has five minutes to express their point of view. That is both democratic and fair.

We are pushing very hard so that, hopefully, we can think about democracy in a new way that has nothing to do with British parliamentary tradition. It's always about British parliamentary tradition, it seems to me. Let's drop the democracy argument, let's stop saying that it is undemocratic if each member of the committee does not have a set time to speak. It works like that in the House, let's do the same in committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Good observation.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

I pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Blaney.

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

I will withdraw my comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Finally, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I will withdraw my comments too.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're back to vote on the amendment. It reads: “10 minutes per member”. All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

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

I have Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Blaney, Mr. Scarpaleggia, and then Ms. Murray.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I'm going to pass, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Blaney.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to give an example that shows how important it is to look into things closely.

On November 22, Mr. Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, appeared before us. Speaking about the Environmental Bill of Rights, he said the following: “Ontario's EBR provides the public with a different but comparable set of legal rights.“ You can take that to the bank, because it is in writing.

After the commissioner had stated that those rights were similar to the ones provided by the bill we are studying, colleagues from the opposition asked him questions about that. In fact, the commissioner said that he was just making some general comments, because, in reality, things were very different. When it came down to it, he recognized that the federal bill was much less clearly structured than the Ontario charter.

That is why it is important for us to take the time we need to study the bill clause by clause. It is not a question of filibustering.

I would also remind Mr. Ouellet that parliamentary committees are structured so that all members have equal weight in representing their fellow citizens. Yes, there are party lines, but I think it is just as important, extremely important, in fact, for all members to be able to have their say. That does not mean that every member is going to have something to say on every clause, but they must have the right to do so. It may also be the case that two members of the same party may have different concerns.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

I withdraw.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Murray.