Evidence of meeting #43 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that Mr. Calkins is bringing this to our attention, because I think he's quite right.
The motion is that we remove “Every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection”. Well, define “environmental protection”. I'd like to give an example. We just had a vote in the House of Commons, and it was Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).
Of course, the coalition supported that--
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I fail to see that this is relevant to the amendment being proposed by Mr. Calkins.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Speaking to that point of order, Chair, if I've just begun speaking, and Ms. Murray has called a point of order when I haven't had a chance to make my point, therefore she's not going to be able to know whether or not it's relevant.
So speaking to that point of order, if she would be patient and allow me adequate time, I think she will find that this is actually very relevant.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Oh, I'm sorry, no, I wanted to speak to the amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. I'll put you on the list.
I was wondering the same thing, Mr. Warawa—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
—if you're going to get to your point and be relevant to the amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
It becomes very relevant when I point out that using wood for sewer pipes, as they used to use wood for sewer pipes years ago, is not environmentally friendly, and yet we have the coalition supporting a motion that they deem to be environmental protection by using more wood.
Now, there can be opportunities where the use of wood, I would think, would be enhancing environmental protection, but using wood for sewer pipes, or for, as an example, building bridges instead of using concrete or steel, would not be environmentally friendly, would not be enhancing, and the protection of the environment—and also for hydroelectric dams to use wood instead of concrete and steel would not—
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, this provision commands no substantive determination, simply the right to participate and have each voice heard, so I see no relevance in what Mr. Warawa is speaking to. Could he please make it relevant?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Woodworth, on that point of order.
You're not speaking to the point of order?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
No, I am. The line that we're discussing does have a significant impact on the clause. And when my turn comes to debate, I'll explain why I think that is.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, again I've been interrupted by the opposition members, not giving me adequate time to make the point. And the point, I believe, is very clear: what is the definition of “environmental protection”? It may be quite different for me, as to members across the way, but I think most Canadians would agree with me—I'm quite sure they would—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
—that building sewer pipes out of wood is not enhancing environmental protection.
And that's the example I'm using.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Order.
Mr. Warawa, you're getting fairly broad, and you can pull in so many things that you consider environmental protection. I want you to talk to the issue of the clause—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
—and how removing the first part of it improves the clause. So I do want you to be more relevant.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You're speaking to the amendment, which is removing “Every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection and”, at the beginning of clause 11. That's what you're speaking to.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you. So I'm not speaking to the point of order interruption.
What we're proposing should be removed is “Every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection”, which has not been defined, and that's the very point that I'm trying to make. And without a definition of “environmental protection”, if we do not have that clear, then it's not relevant. It's a feel-good, meaningless statement.
So removing that and beginning with “The Government of Canada shall not” is, I think, more appropriate, and therefore we have the motion to remove that editorial, meaningless comment.
