Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll call this meeting to order.

I see Ms. Duncan with her hand up.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I've circulated a motion that I wish to put before the committee before we proceed to clause-by-clause. May I read the motion to you?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Please read the motion.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I move:

That the Committee, in conducting its clause by clause review of Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, allocate a maximum of five minutes per recognized political party for debate in relation to consideration of each clause or amendment.

May I speak to my motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can speak to the motion, please.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think it's really incumbent upon us as a committee to be moving forward on the agenda of priority matters that we've agreed on, a number of which have been referred to us by the House of Commons. The bill that's currently before was referred to us by the House of Commons, and we have a number of matters referred to us that are languishing.

We have not completed a review of the endangered species act, and we have not begun the review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A number of other matters will come before us. As I understand it, the commissioner will report on Wednesday. We seem to be bogged down.

I had agreed that my bill would proceed after Mr. Woodworth's bill and we expedited that. I think this is the most efficient and fair way to proceed with the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Quite frankly, I am shocked by the motion. I guess the first question I have for you would be whether or not a motion like this in order, on the grounds that Bill C-469 is Ms. Duncan's own bill, which she introduced in the House and which has now come to committee to be debated. Is it appropriate for her to move a motion to stifle debate?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll respond to that. On that point, there is a paragraph on page 758 in chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, in our rule book by O'Brien and Bosc. Under “Length of Speeches”, it says:

A committee itself may also limit the time it devotes to consideration of a bill by adopting a motion to that effect. Such a motion may be debated and amended. A committee may also adopt the equivalent of a time allocation motion, allotting time for the examination of each clause, or terminating consideration of a bill at a particular time or date. Motions have also been adopted suspending consideration of particular bills until certain conditions have been met.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So the bill is in order?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The motion is in order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Oh, the motion is. Well, thank you, I appreciate that clarification.

So Ms. Duncan's motion is in order, but ethically.... I don't question her motives, but to me it appears to be in the form of a conflict in that on the one hand it's the responsibility of Parliament to debate this bill, Bill C-469, and to hear from witnesses.

And we should have heard from first nations. We've said that. We've now had a deluge of additional briefings and Ms. Duncan unfortunately doesn't want to hear from them, it appears: doesn't want to hear from first nations and doesn't want to hear from witnesses. This deluge of e-mails and briefings we're getting is again reminding Canadians how bad Bill C-469 is.

Chair, the other irony in this, besides the NDP trying to stifle debate and hearing from other Canadians, from other witnesses, is that it's the NDP that stopped SARA, the Species at Risk Act, with the help of opposition members. We had, I believe, a responsibility to do that. My recommendation was that we finish SARA—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I tried to be very careful in not talking about what was decided in camera, and I think Mr. Warawa is sliding into a discussion of the details of the agenda, which was done in camera.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I will be very careful not to share anything that was in camera, Chair. I am sharing my own lament, with no details—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa, I would suggest that your lament respect in camera discussions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, what I would like to clarify is that I lament that we are not finishing SARA. I think we had a moral responsibility to finish that, but we haven't. We've moved on to Bill C-469 and now I think the record will clearly show that we have opposition members repeatedly interrupting as important points are being made.

We have had interruptions using the tactic of points of order and stall tactics, so it's been quite disheartening, and now we have this motion. To say there should be an allocation of “a maximum of five minutes per recognized political party for debate in relation to consideration of each clause or amendment” is just unrealistic.

Ms. Duncan has one member, Chair. One member--so what she is proposing that she would get five minutes. Now, on this side of the table, we have me and my four colleagues. We have five members. So she is suggesting that we would share those five minutes. She is suggesting that the Liberals would share their five minutes and the two Bloc members would share their five minutes, but she would have the sole five minutes, because there is only one person, herself, from the NDP. It seems patently unfair and impractical.

If there were a fairer way of dealing with this—for example, if she wanted to say that we limit it to five minutes per individual—I think that would sell around here in the spirit of fairness, if she wants to move things along, but that may not be realistic either. I look forward to hearing from other members around this table on whether or not five minutes would be adequate.

But in the spirit of fairness—and again, I hope this was not a deliberate attempt by the NDP to stifle healthy debate—I would move an amendment to her motion that the five minutes be “per member” instead of “per recognized political party”. That would be my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So we have an amendment on the floor for debate: that we change “per recognized political party” to “per member”.

Mr. Warawa, do you want to speak to the amendment?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have shared some of our concerns, particularly last meeting's concerns about the development and lens through which that needs to be looked at. I was very concerned that Bill C-469 would change all of the good work of Parliament, both in this House and in the Senate, in passing through--with unanimous support--a definition of sustainable development, a strategy, and an act.

What we saw last Thursday, Chair, shockingly, was the NDP voting against the motion in the House and opposing sustainable development. They were the only party that did that.

But I have to give them credit, in that they are being consistent. They want to change the definition of sustainable development through Bill C-469, but they also voted against sustainable development in the House, so there appears to be a plan by the NDP regarding sustainable development or the extinguishment—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the same as the point of order that had to be raised in House.... Mr. Warawa raised this point in the House. He is not delivering what actually was voted on: we did not vote against sustainable development.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa, to that point--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Was that a point of order, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I think it's a point of debate and a recollection of how people represent the facts. It doesn't have anything to do with the Standing Orders, I can tell you that--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, can I respond to that point?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, you can respond on that point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

This is what was voted on in the House of Commons on December 1, last week, Chair. It was that:

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (Involvement of Parliament), be read the third time and passed.

This was the vote:

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-210 under private members' business.

Now, Bill S-210 was dealt with in here, I think, in a one-hour meeting. Thanks to Mr. Woodworth and his good work and that of the Senate, it was passed unanimously. Then, when the Federal Sustainable Development Act actually came to a vote, they voted against it. The only nays listed in Hansard, Chair, are all of the NDP members. So I'm not quite sure what Ms. Duncan is trying to do in distorting the facts.