Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bigras has a point of order.

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

I can come back to this, Mr. Chair.

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

Really, Mr. Chair, if we moved to clause-by-clause study, we could perhaps discuss this. But I think that we are significantly moving away from the motion before us. At the moment, we are discussing the time allowed per clause and per motion.

So I would invite the hon. member to go back to the crux of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have to agree with Monsieur Bigras that you have to speak specifically to the subamendment: it's members versus recognized political parties. You cannot start talking about clauses that haven't been tabled yet or that we haven't discussed yet at committee. You cannot get ahead of yourself and guess what the outcome of those debates are going to be. You have to stick specifically to the subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, I did not mention amendments, but a number of clauses in the bill before us, clauses that have consequences…

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Even with the clauses, we can't debate that right now.

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

I do not want to debate them. The witnesses actually came to tell us that those clauses were extremely damaging and harmful for industry, hence the importance of making sure that all members have a chance to speak. I go back to clauses 16 and 23, which both directly affect Hydro-Québec. I feel that it is extremely important for me not only to be able speak on this bill, but also, above all, to be able to amend it.

That said, I would just like to point out that, at the last several meetings I have attended, dilatory motions and all kinds of underhanded tricks from the coalition parties have been preventing us from expressing our opinions on the real issues. Statements have been made here about Ontario's Environment Commissioner. Witnesses have made statements that we have not been able to debate because we are always dealing with frivolous points of order that prevent us from dealing with the basics of the bill.

So I support Mr. Warawa's amendment and I hope that we will be able to amend this motion to make it acceptable to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

I have Ms. Murray, Ms. Duncan, and Monsieur Benoit.

Ms. Murray, you have the floor.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this notice of motion reflects the point that this is an important bill. There needs to be real discussion to get it right. No member around this table is ignoring the importance of the perspective of the business community, the perspective of the environmental community, or the public. I think we want to get it right so that this is a good piece of public policy. But the reason this motion was required is that this hasn't been the tenor of the debate from the Conservative side, frankly.

I pointed it out in the last meeting. There were five members who were repeating the same points that their colleagues had just made from the same talking papers, again and again and again and again taking up major amounts of time without saying anything very different from each other. There was also a disrespectful tenor to the commentary, which required other members to bring forward points of order for rulings on what were experienced as disrespectful comments.

As Ms. Duncan said, this motion is to reflect that this committee has other points of business it wants to consider. When the Conservative members' use of a plethora of procedural tactics to frustrate getting to clause-by-clause debate failed, thus absorbing hours of this committee's time, then the Conservative members started to have a not-to-the-point discussion on clause 3. Those kinds of tactics are why we need this motion to have a limit to the timed discussion.

On clause 3, for example, and the discussion by Mr. Warawa about the principle of sustainable development, those would have been very appropriate points to make in clauses 11, 12 or 13 on whether the substance of those clauses really adheres to this principle. Or it could have been a discussion about whether that principle should or shouldn't be in there, but in fact the member argued that we need the principle of sustainable development because otherwise this bill is too much about the environment, so in fact he was arguing for that principle being a principle in the bill.

He then went on for another 20 minutes on things that were completely not to the point of whether that principle should be in there or not. He'd already stated we need the principle of sustainable development with the economic, social, and environmental aspects because of his fears of the bill being one-sided. It was absorbing a big chunk of a meeting on something that was misplaced, and it was experienced by members on this side as a deliberate attempt to frustrate progress on this debate. That's why we need to limit the time.

I'm going to argue that five minutes per party may not be appropriate. I think that having a per-person time period is a more appropriate way to go.

But when I hear the word “anti-democratic” with respect to putting on some limits so we can get through the substance of our debate and onto other business and do the best possible job, as opposed to what we've been experiencing with the frustration of the ring around the rosy of “black is white, no, white is black” coming from the Conservative members.... We need a way to move on. I support there being a time limit.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have Ms. Duncan, Mr. Benoit, Mr. Woodworth, and Monsieur Bigras.

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Well, Mr. Chair, I won't be able to say what I really wanted to say, which is that we should call the vote, since nobody else had their hand up, but....

I have observed the workings of this committee, as has everyone else around this table, and as has the public, because these proceedings are occurring in public. We have a lot on our plate. We have a lot of things that various members of the committee are recommending should come before this committee that we don't have a hope now of getting into probably even in 2011. I find that really regrettable.

I have put forward what I thought was a constructive proposal. I'm not averse to other people's proposals, but I am the one who put forward a proposal that seemed amenable to a number of people at the time. I think that if all members of this committee were really sincere that they wanted to move on and expedite the review, they would move on and simply call the vote on the amendment.

I am willing to give up time allotted to me to discuss my own bill in order to move on to other matters. It's very clear that the Conservative members are not going to vote for this bill in the House—it's pretty clear where they stand on this bill—so the objective of dragging out the discussion is simply dragging out the discussion.

I am bending over backwards to try to expedite what I think could be a constructive review of the bill. A number of members have tabled amendments that I think are very constructive, and I look forward to moving on and discussing those.

I'm putting that forward, and if one of the other members who put their hand up wishes to follow on my suggestion, or withdraw their question, I would welcome to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Benoit.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've seen this tactic quite a few times before, particularly on the part of the NDP. By bringing this motion forth and using this kind of tactic, they're eliminating fairness at this committee. That's what has happened in the past.

What shocks me is that we see the Bloc sitting there with two members, and they're not arguing with Ms. Duncan--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bigras is on the list.

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

Okay, but so far I haven't heard any objection to this motion. We're dealing with the amendment right now. If this were to be supported by the opposition and pass on a per-member basis, each Bloc member would only be worth half as much on this committee when it comes to debating the issue, each Liberal member only a third as much, and each Conservative member only a sixth as much as the NDP member.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

There is a point of order.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Are we not debating the subamendment right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I believe that's what he's getting at.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The subamendment means that every member would have five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Let's talk to the amendment and the benefits of having it be per member versus per political party. I know that's the point you're trying to get at.

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

Exactly. I'm speaking to the amendment. There is no subamendment on the floor right now; it's the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa has a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, we're having repeated interruptions by the NDP. I would ask you to rule if it's appropriate for them to keep on interrupting. We listened quietly as they made their presentations. We've been polite, yet we hear heckling and interruptions. Is that appropriate?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I believe that Ms. Duncan has raised a few points of order, and she's definitely free to make those points of order. I will rule on them. I'm not going to censure anyone if they're making legitimate points of order based upon the rules that govern us.

Mr. Benoit, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder how members of this committee are going to justify this to their constituents, especially members who really care about the environment. I wonder how they are going to justify to their constituents that they supported a motion that would give the three of them together, in the case of the official opposition, only as much as one NDP member; or in the case of government, one-sixth as much time. To me, this is really repulsive and certainly not democratic. I will support the amendment, but I can't support the motion as amended, because it still limits debate in a way that I see as being unfair.

I assume that this has been debated for three months or more at committee. I understand why people would be getting tired of it. I'm not a member of the committee, but it must have been debated before for this kind of tactic to be used. It must have been going on for some time. I understand the impatience on the part of those who support the bill, but this is supposed to be a democratic place. Let's allow the debate take place and not fetter it with some kind of time allocation that simply isn't fair.