Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We are on the facts, but let's get back to the amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

Chair, that was my concern in speaking to the five minutes for everybody. I think I have a responsibility to bring my points to the attention of members around this table and to make sure I make my points in an efficient way and not speak for long periods of time, but also, when something is important, I should have an opportunity to speak to those around this table.

With Ms. Duncan's motion saying that I should not be able to, that it has to be shared, with five minutes for all of us, is patently unfair. I think the motion speaks for itself. Having the fairness of five minutes would hopefully achieve what she's trying to propose, but in a fair way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

On the amendment, I have Mr. Woodworth, Mr. Armstrong, and then Mr. Blaney.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Before I begin, Mr. Chair, may I inquire about something?

I assume that as and when the amendment is disposed of, we'll return to the speakers list—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll return to the speakers list on the main motion.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So I'm not going to try to get into comments that I would have made on the main motion. I'm going simply going to speak to this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, it's specific as to the time limit per member versus per party.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I do want to say that I support the amendment that we should be dealing with this on the basis of members rather than parties, but even if the motion were amended in that fashion, I would still oppose the motion. Among other things, I don't think that five minutes is an adequate period of time, but I'll reserve those comments.

I would like first of all to mention that, as I understand the committee structure, although clearly we try to maintain solidarity with our caucus colleagues, we are here as individuals. Although we might try to work out how we're going to do things, it's extremely problematic to sit down and figure out that person A is going to speak to this point, person B to that point, and person C to this point.

In point of fact, we all have different ways of expressing ourselves, and we all have a valuable contribution to bring, in my opinion. It is, in a way, an infringement upon our rights as members that we should be forced by the motion before us, without the amendment, to be speaking as a bloc. In fact, there are those who would say that we shouldn't even always vote as a bloc. To have to speak as a bloc is nearly impossible.

I also want to say that there is some relevance here to what happened in the House regarding Bill S-216. It may be a good illustration of how sometimes parties and people don't apply themselves consistently.

I recall the closing hour of debate on Bill S-216. Quite frankly, the NDP member spent a great deal of time, instead of speaking about Bill S-216, speaking about Bill C-311, and clearly wasn't even adhering to even the smallest modicum of relevance in that debate, but was simply talking, I suppose, to fill time or maybe to hear her voice. I won't speculate as to her motives, but in any event it was to me quite distressing, as the mover of Bill S-216, to hear time being used on that debate to talk about Bill C-311. Of course, then it was necessary for me to respond to those comments on Bill C-311, and it just derailed the whole debate.

In the interest of maintaining our rights and privileges as individual members, I think we should be dealing with this on a per member basis.

The other thing I'd like to say, Mr. Chair, is that it has occurred to me from time to time that sometimes members--and I won't point the finger at just the opposition--think debate is unnecessary because they come to a table like this with their minds made up. Sometimes I'm as guilty as anyone of coming in with my mind made up.

Even if we have our minds made up, Mr. Chair, I think it still behooves us to stop, listen, let others speak, and hear what they have to say. Who knows? Some minor miracle may occur and we might change our mind along the way. If we come at it from the point of view that our minds are made up, well of course, then, even spending 60 seconds a person to let your opponent speak is too much, because we already know what we're going to do and we might as well move right to it.

In any event, I mentioned that even given the current amendment, I would not be able to support this motion. Quite frankly, I find the motion offensive generally. In an effort to try to improve it a little bit, I would like to propose a subamendment to the existing amendment that is on the floor, and that is to lengthen the time to 10 minutes per person.

May I speak to that amendment, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That would be an amendment to the main motion, not to the subamendment, so it would be--

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

--out of order for now?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's out of order for now. If you want to go back to that down the road, you can.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. In that case, I'm finished speaking to this amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Armstrong, then Mr. Blaney, then Ms. Murray.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, on a point of order, am I hearing from you instruction from the clerk that an amendment cannot be amended? Is that what you are saying?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, no. If he were doing a subamendment on the amendment, I'd allow it, but the thing is that the amendment kicks in after “per”, taking out “recognized political party” and adding in “member” in place of those three words. So what you're doing is going back to the main motion, changing the time limit from five to ten, and for that reason, it's an amendment, not a subamendment.

Is it clear?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Got it. It's clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. Armstrong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the amendment, I'm very concerned about this motion, and I'm going to speak in favour of the amendment. The reason I'm going to speak in favour of the amendment is that I believe that--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're on the amendment.

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

I'm on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're not on the time; we're talking about who gets to talk.

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

I'm speaking in favour of the amendment because I'm quite concerned about representation of people, particularly on the Atlantic coast. If you look around the table, this committee is very fortunate that we have representation from every single province in this country--with the exception of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick. As the only member on this committee from the entire Atlantic region, to be limited to one minute--that's if I get a minute, after my colleagues finish speaking--on every amendment and every clause, I think that's inherently unfair.

You are disenfranchising a huge part of this country and a part of this country that has a huge concern about this particular bill because of our recent deal between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, our recently announced project for tidal power, which takes place in my riding. This bill could significantly impact the future of Atlantic Canada. I cannot sit here and support something that will limit Atlantic Canada's voice on this bill, a bill that is inherently strong and will impact, possibly negatively, the whole future of our region.

And as far as I know, Canada is still a democratic country. To give one member of a committee five minutes and to give our entire region one minute on every single clause and every single amendment I think is inherently unfair. Therefore, I'll be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Blaney.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I must say that I am shocked by the motion on the table. Although the motion has been made by the New Democratic Party, it seems totally undemocratic and totally irresponsible to me, removing as it does the right of members of this committee to speak.

As a Quebecker, I can provide a very specific example. You will remember that, in his testimony at one of the first sessions, William Amos, from the University of Ottawa, raised some major problems with two clauses of Bill C-469. First, he mentioned clause 23, which could expose Hydro-Québec to lawsuits. The same witness also said that clause 16 of the proposed federal bill would allow injunctions to be brought against Hydro-Québec's activities.

Mr. Chair, do you think it makes sense to have no more than a minute to speak to amendments that are so significant and so fundamental that they are shaking the foundations of Canadian environmental law? I see that as quite irresponsible and, frankly, I have to say that members would appear completely ridiculous.

Clearly, I support Mr. Warawa's proposed amendment, not only because it is important for all members to have their say, but also because it is important to study this motion in the context of the time that members will be allowed to give their opinion on other motions to come.

I have some other comments. Some remarks have suggested that members on this side do not trust industry. I have to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. We have a good deal of trust in industry. We are studying this bill with an open mind.

For example, we could mention the Conseil patronal de l'environnement du Québec, CPEQ. It was founded in 1992 by representatives of the major industrial and business sectors in Quebec. CPEQ's mission is to represent its members' interests on environmental and sustainable development matters…

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.