Evidence of meeting #131 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would rather take 30 minutes to explain why we should do things more promptly than take days, weeks and months and do nothing. I am happy to take a half hour of time to do better than the current trajectory of this Liberal government. I will take no issues with 30 minutes. In fact, I might go an hour. It might even be worth it.
The reality is that I cannot support the amendment as proposed, as I mentioned, without including this subamendment. I think we need to finish, perhaps, first and foremost.... I did outline many issues that are very important to Canadians of all stripes and of all regions, but the devastation that Jasper saw is, in my view, personally at least, the top priority. That's why I have moved the subamendment.
Collectively, I think the evidence is overwhelming. The Liberal government, in trying to move a prestudy on Bill C-73, is making a direct effort to change the channel from its failures in Jasper and from its failures for Quebec workers and, broadly speaking, taxpayers.
Bill C-73 was tabled in June. It has had a grand total of zero seconds of debate in the House of Commons. I'll come back to why that is very important. Just as importantly, I have never once seen Bill C-73—perhaps my colleagues can correct me—on one of those schedules of what is going to be coming up for debate in the House of Commons. For those who don't know, there's something called the Thursday question, where members of the official opposition ask the governing party what the agenda for the week ahead will be. The Thursday question response, as far as I can tell and have experienced, has never once included Bill C-73, so I don't believe this is actually a priority for the government. It might be a political priority, but it has not been proven to be in any way, shape or form a legislative priority, where the government is using its House of Commons time to actually move this forward.
Let me tell you why this matters, Mr. Chair. Case law, as it relates to ministerial statements, is vital. In our democratic system, there is a principle that Parliament holds the authority to both scrutinize and debate legislation in the House of Commons prior to its moving to the committee stage. This includes what I think is a critical moment, or often 20 minutes of a moment, where the minister presents the bill, explains its contents, its purpose and its objectives in the maiden speech for that legislation in the House of Commons.
In my view, we must respect the procedural order of Parliament. This ensures that members of all political parties have the proper context and the full information necessary to engage in meaningful deliberation when it gets to committee, to ask reasonable questions of the expert witnesses which this and every other committee brings before it.
I'm not saying this to make an allegation that a prestudy has never been done before, that it's entirely this new idea, but in this context, it is a rather novel strategy. The minister has not spoken to this bill at all. Not one second, beyond tabling, has been dedicated to this legislation. When you look at LEGISinfo—
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Is this about the subamendment?
I think the member is going a bit off topic. This is not at all about the subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, the member has moved away from the subject of Jasper and is now talking about the fact that a bill has not yet been debated.
Mr. Leslie, again, I remind you to stay on topic.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't really agree with that.
We want to postpone the study until after the minister's appearance. I think the subamendment is in order, but Mr. Leslie should avoid straying too far from the subject he is debating.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Certainly. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, but I will offer a slightly revised version of that same reality.
The subamendment I have moved forward states, “but none shall commence until the committee has heard from Minister Boissonnault in relation to the study of the factors leading to the recent fires in Jasper National Park.”
Again, context is important. The motion where I am trying to say “but none shall commence” is about Bill C-73. I think it is entirely within the—
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
Once again, in my view, it's novel; it's weird and it's odd that we are undertaking a study without any context. We're lawmakers—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I know the finance committee does prestudies all the time, so I don't think it's that odd, but go ahead.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
It actually happens, I think, more frequently in the Senate after it's been through the House of Commons.
Now, prestudies on an issue are one thing. Pre-budget consultations are an example. I'm not looking to say this is entirely new, but the idea of a specific piece of legislation amending a current act without any specific direction.... I will get to why I think this is very important.
I think that you, Mr. Chair, as a lawyer, will actually appreciate this.
As I was saying, when you go to LEGISinfo, which is on the parliamentary website, where you look at the actual text of the legislation—and we are lawmakers; our job is to read and understand what the text of the words on the page of the law are—there's a big tab right beside it that says “Major speeches”. The first of the major speeches is the minister's maiden speech, and there is good reason for it.
Parliament has recognized that the role of that speech provides incredibly necessary context. Just as importantly, from a legal perspective, in any future legal proceedings, that is what a judge will look at: What was the intent by the minister of the Crown, the government, in moving forward with that legislation?
It doesn't matter what Branden across the way says. It doesn't matter what I say. It matters what the intention of the bill was. None of us—no Canadian, no parliamentarian—has seen what that intention is. We could read it in a silo, but that doesn't change our lack of understanding of what the government is trying to do with this legislation.
In my view, the normal process is first reading, tabling, second reading, maiden speech, debate, debate, debate and then it comes to us. The proposal to prestudy this in such a unique and novel way contradicts that process.
I want to underscore my position using relevant case law—
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'm going to show my colleague that I'm listening, but I think he's really going off topic.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, you're on the list after Mr. Mazier.
Mr. Leslie, please get back on topic.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I am willing to, but I will say that I think I'm on topic. I think that as a legal mind yourself, I would be hard pressed to have you disagree with the importance of that maiden speech.
I think that any legal mind, anybody who's in the world, has experienced and seen judicial decisions that cite that initial statement from the minister. Debates in Parliament also do more broadly, but I'll go back to why LEGISinfo has a specific section on its website beside the link to the text of the bill that says “Major speeches”. They're making it very easy for future jurists to go ahead—
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
You established earlier that Bill C‑73 was not directly related to the discussion on the subamendment and that Mr. Leslie should stick to his subamendment. He's going off topic again, talking about the legal profession and theories. I am confused.
Again, Mr. Leslie—
Liberal
