Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have three points. First, I find it very ironic that the opposition coalition--if I may call them that for today--has come up with three versions of the same amendment, with two of them coming from the same party. If this is what we can expect from them in government, I think Canadians ought to worry.

Second, this provision is one more example of how this bill is creating incentives for environmental groups and activists to engage in litigation, because they're going to be paid as lawyers, whether they are lawyers or whether they have lawyers or not. That's one of the fundamental flaws with this bill that doesn't exist in any of the other environmental litigation legislation we've looked at, including the CEPA environmental litigation, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, and so forth. I think this is a very bad way to go.

The third observation I'd like to make is to recall a speech I heard from a good Liberal many years ago. Some of my Liberal colleagues opposite may remember Elinor Caplan. She gave a very good exposition on the difference between socialist government, extreme right government, and good government. She used the analogy of a boxing ring. She said the government was like the referee in a society that is like a boxing ring. The socialist government will always leap in on the side of the weak guy and start beating up the big guy along--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Did I hear a point of order?

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

Point of order. The Liberal Party does not seem all that interested in jumping into Mr. Woodworth's ring.

I would encourage you, Mr. Chair, to bring the member back in line and to proceed straight to the proposed amendments. I get the sense that the member is moving away from the scope of the amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

On that point of order, we have Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

We've seen a limitation in time for each of us around this table. Mr. Woodworth has expressed that frustration numerous times. This is an opportunity for him to tie it all together and make some important points. For the opposition members to try to restrict Mr. Woodworth's time even more is not appropriate. I think what he is saying is relevant, and he should be able to continue making his points.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On that point of order, the point I'm making is that by allowing a disproportionate advantage to plaintiffs in clause 23 we would be like the socialist referee who jumps into the ring and starts beating up the defendant alongside the plaintiff. So that's the relevance of it, and I'd like to expand on it a little further.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth, I trust you will be relevant to the amendment we're discussing. Continue.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I thought I just explained the relevance of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm trusting you on that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

The point is that this clause gives an enormous advantage to the plaintiff and no reciprocal advantage to the defendant. If one wanted to be fair, one might want to say that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant may be ordered to pay costs, unless the action or the defence is found to be frivolous or vexatious.

One might say that the plaintiff and the defendant may be entitled to counsel fees regardless of whether or not they're represented by counsel, and an advance award, etc., but no, instead, this is, in the manner that Elinor Caplan was describing, a prototypical case of a socialist jumping into the ring to help beat up one side of an issue on behalf of the side that they perceive to be the little guy.

Now, the prototypical extreme right wing would impose this kind of a provision except perhaps they would replace the word “plaintiff” with “defendant” and beat up on the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, but really, Mr. Chair, the point of Ms. Caplan's analogy was to say that a good government doesn't go to either of those extremes. A good government instead simply equips both parties with boxing gloves and a good ring and training, and then lets them go to it and lets the merit of the matter determine the issue.

I just think this is another good example of where this bill is the government, through the legislature, jumping into the ring on behalf of one side and trying to leave the other side with as few defences as possible. The same thing could be said regarding subclause 23(3) and a number of other provisions in this bill. It's bad law.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Ouellet, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not find Mr. Woodworth's arguments all that sincere. He said that the government had to be the referee, but it did not assume that role during the last vote. Members on the government side did not vote for or against the motion. And that is why it is hard for me to think anything Mr. Woodworth just said was sincere.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

I was wondering if maybe Mr. Woodworth would.... This may be a little off topic, but I was wondering if he would like to analyze Minister Clement's latest moves vis-à-vis the CRTC last week through that prism--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Order, order.

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

But that's not really the main point I wanted to make.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Although I'm a little slow off the mark, I guess since I know that my colleague Monsieur Bigras and I agree on the importance of civility and proper conduct in this proceeding, I believe that Mr. Ouellet has just in some fashion impugned my motives, as if to say that I didn't really believe that this was a one-sided clause and that it was weighted unfairly in favour of a plaintiff.

I believe Mr. Ouellet has just indicated that I'm not sincere in that submission. If so, it seems to me that he's impugning the motive of what I've said, and I ask the chair to rule him out of order accordingly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. As I mentioned earlier....

On that point of order, Monsieur Ouellet.

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

That is not what I said. I said he was not sincere when he stated that the government was supposed to serve as the referee. It did not do so during the last vote. I did not question Mr. Woodworth's other comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Just so everyone knows, let's go to page 93 of O'Brien and Bosc, our great rule book. Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”, talks about the importance of freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make. This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House. Under it, Members are able to make statements or allegations about outside bodies or persons, which they may hesitate to make without the protection of privilege. Though this is often criticized, the freedom to make allegations which the Member genuinely believes at the time to be true, or at least worthy of investigation, is fundamental.

I'll now go on to the section dealing with misuse of treatment of speech. On page 97 we have a ruling by Speaker Fraser, as follows:

There are only two kinds of institutions in this land to which this awesome and far-reaching privilege [of freedom of speech] extends—Parliament and the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other. These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited.

I would also mention that on page 99 we have what Speaker Milliken noted in 2003, as follows:

Speakers discourage members of Parliament from using names in speeches if they are speaking ill of some other person because, with parliamentary privilege applying to what they say, anything that is damaging to the reputation or to the individual,…is then liable to be published with the cover of parliamentary privilege and the person is unable to bring any action in respect of those claims.

So we do need to treat each other with respect. However, it states on page 150--still in chapter 3--that:

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter. The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred.

So I don't have any power to rule. And I don't believe it was that great of an impugnity.

At any rate, we have to respect, first of all, the matter of freedom of speech, and allow people to say what's on their minds, although I do have to maintain order and conduct and police that to the best of my ability. So I do ask everybody to get along.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, you have the floor.

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

Well, Mr. Woodworth made a point about coalitions, based on the fact that the three amendments were identical, and I'm just wondering if it might not have had something to do with the fact that the same legislative drafter was drafting all of the amendments.

I don't think there was any kind of collusion on that. I think it was just that the lawyer at the House of Commons was the same lawyer for all of us.