Libby Davies

[Points of Order, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this point of order because it does have to do with the NDP supply day tomorrow, on Bill C-311.

I would say, first, that I have listened to the government House leader's points about his belief that this would require unanimous consent, but I would point out that we are bringing this forward as a supply day motion, of course, and that within this motion there is still a vote to take place. So, on our supply day we are bringing forward the contents of this bill, because we do think it is an urgent matter, but that in no way negates the need to have a vote on our supply day motion, which of course will take place.

I would point out that we do believe this motion is in order because opposition parties have always been given quite a lot of latitude to propose whatever motion they want so long as it is written in a regular form and as a regular motion.

Page 724 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, first edition, because that is the one we are dealing with, states that:

The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the procedural aspect is not open to a reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.

I would suggest that the motion is worded in a regular way and simply proposes to do things that have, in fact, been done in this place from time to time on previous occasions under closure or time allocation or by unanimous consent. I do believe that because this is part of our supply day, we do have greater latitude in terms of what we choose to bring forward. Certainly the basic tenet and principle of the House, taking a vote, will be very much a part of this process, and so, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to see that this motion we propose to bring forward tomorrow is in order and that the House be allowed to debate the motion and to vote on the motion as we normally would do with any other supply day motion.

[Privilege, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I know the government takes great exception to anyone who dares to protest. The question the government House leader has raised today is absolutely absurd. As others have pointed out, it is simply political grandstanding. It is that particular House leader who has told the House repeatedly that when such matters arise, the appropriate place to raise those issues is in the House leaders' meeting, which, by the way, will take place at 3:30 this afternoon. If he were concerned about security issues, that would be the appropriate place to raise that matter.

What I have to say to the House in response to these ludicrous allegations is that the member for Toronto—Danforth had nothing whatsoever to do with the protest that took place in the gallery yesterday. Let us be very clear. There were members from different parties who met with the young people on Parliament Hill. It is part of our responsibility and mandate to book rooms and meet with constituents and organizations on Parliament Hill.

The member for Toronto—Danforth was simply doing his job. As the leader of the New Democrats, I am glad that he met with that very enthusiastic group of young people who came to Parliament to raise their concerns about climate change. To charge the member with contempt, saying that somehow we organized the protest in the House is ludicrous. There is no conspiracy except in the mind of the government House leader. The fact is we knew nothing about the protest. If members will recall, the protest took place in the middle of the question by the leader of the NDP in question period.

This is an absurd allegation. It is simply being made for political grandstanding. The fact is, yes, our party's leader met with the group, as did other members of Parliament. We had no knowledge of the protest. However, in a broader spectrum, we uphold and respect the rights of people to protest and put forward their points of view.

The government House leader is simply trying to make political points in the House. It is not a question of privilege. The member for Toronto—Danforth has done nothing wrong in terms of his responsibilities as a member. To charge him with contempt of the House is absolutely absurd. I would ask the member to withdraw his question of privilege on the basis that it has no factual or evidentiary information whatsoever.

[Petitions, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition. I think it is the third time that I have presented this petition from the people in the Vancouver Chinatown area and Vancouver generally who are very supportive of the idea of designating Chinatown as a national historic site.

The petitioners recognize that Chinatown has been a very important hub for commercial, social and cultural activities in the Chinese community since the 19th century and continues to be a treasured part of Vancouver today.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with all levels of government and the community to recognize and preserve the rich legacy of Vancouver's Chinatown, and to designate Chinatown as a national historic site.

[Privilege, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, you heard some arguments yesterday from various representatives. Just so that you have heard from all parties in the House, because we do consider this a very serious matter, I would like to raise the same point on behalf of members of the New Democratic Party. I would also underline that it is a very serious matter when ministers go out and basically pre-empt the introduction of bills and usurp the privileges of members in the House. It is a fundamental principle in the House that they should not do so, and that the House is the first priority in terms of bills coming forward, being introduced and debated. We consider it a very serious matter.

Although I have heard what the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader has said today, I do think it is important that the government be very clear that they are apologizing for what happened and that it does apply to all ministers and to all bills, so that something like this does not happen again.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to support the argument and the point of order put forward by my colleague from the Bloc.

I was just reading the ruling that came from the Speaker on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, and I would agree that what the government did today by preventing further amendments was really a motion to limit debate.

It has been clear in rulings from the Speaker that there is a lot of concern now about the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1. The member is entirely correct about the Standing Order being about routine motions, whereas what took place today was clearly an attempt by the government to limit debate, which is not appropriate under this Standing Order.

The government has other Standing Orders that it could use, such as Standing Order 71. There are other measures that it could use. For the government to try to ram this through at the last minute by using Standing Order 56.1, definitely limits the debate of members.

Madam Speaker, I would hope that you would examine this very carefully. A creeping, sort of incremental change is taking place where the government is continually relying on this particular Standing Order to expand the horizon of what it wants to do. It is really an inappropriate use of this particular Standing Order.

I hope the Speaker will uphold the earlier decision that was made in 2001 to make the confines and the appropriate use of this Standing Order clear. It clearly was not intended to be used to prevent further debate by members, which is what is actually happening right now because it was allowed.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point of order.

First, I would suggest it is a little late in the day to raise this point of order because we already previously presented the motion. Obviously the government is frustrated that it lost its motion just now so it wants to revert.

However, we have studied this very carefully and based on Marleau and Montpetit, on page 631, it is quite clear that a bill, once it has been referred to a committee, the House may give the committee an instruction by way of a motion. The motion before the House currently does that. It is also quite clear that it is left to the committee to decide whether to exercise the powers given to it by the House.

Therefore, this is a permissive motion. It refers it back to the committee with an instruction, but it is still within the prerogative of the committee to decide whether to exercise the powers given to it by the House.

I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is in order.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is inexplicable. It seems to me he is mixing apples and oranges. I do not know to which other bill he is referring.

The reality is that the committee has had this bill for six months. As he himself pointed out, there was an almost identical bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-377, which also had extensive examination by the committee.

If he had issues or concerns around economic questions, he and his government had more than ample time. Good heavens, the Conservatives have claimed from day one that this is something they care about, so why have they themselves not done their economic analysis? They should not pin it on this bill. This bill has been the only one to come forward that has set a course that Canadians want in terms of climate change.

Again, the excuses and rationales are incredibly lame because they do not deal with the question as to why the committee chose to delay this bill. We should deal with the substantive part of this bill, get it before committee, hear the witnesses and deal with the arguments. That is what we are here to do. We should ensure it comes back for a proper debate and vote in the House. That is what we are here to do. Let us get on with it.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been before the committee for six months. If the committee believes it is a priority and an urgent matter, and I hope it would, it has had ample opportunity to examine the bill.

No one is suggesting that the committee not hear from witnesses or not examine the bill. The objection is that the committee made a decision, in our opinion, to deliberately delay the consideration of the bill in order to prevent it from being dealt with before the important world conference in Copenhagen in December. That is the issue. If the committee wants to do its job and hear from witnesses, it can go right ahead. That is what we want to see happen. We want the bill to be dealt with. We do not want it to be delayed.

I find the rationale, the excuses or whatever they are from the member to be very lame. I do not think he has answered the substantive question as to why it is that the bill is being delayed.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I came into the House and apologized for a press release that was sent out in error. I did that in good faith and with genuine intent.

We have already heard from the chair of the committee that the committee has come forward to the House asking for a delay of 30 days. I have not divulged any information about the vote; I am not privy to that. All I know is that a decision of the committee was made which is why this motion came before the House today.

There is nothing out of order with that, so I will certainly continue speaking to the motion that is before us today.

I want to reiterate that there are obviously going to be a lot of political games played today.

I want it to be on the record that what is happening here is really quite shameful. What the NDP has always tried to do with the bill is to have it go through its due process. It was sent to committee. The committee has had adequate time to deal with the bill. The fact that it is now being delayed is obviously part of some other political agenda. Other parties will have to account for their own actions.

All I know is that what is important about the bill is to get it dealt with, particularly clause 6 which deals with the targets. That is why we have this motion before us today. It is perfectly in order. In fact, it was imperative to bring forward this motion because there really was no other way to deal with it.

I ask the members of the House to support this motion and to ensure that Bill C-311 is dealt with, brought back to the House so we can hold our heads high when we go to Copenhagen and say that we represent what the Canadian people want us to do.

[Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act, October 8th, 2009]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that it have the power to divide Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, into two bills: Bill C-311A, An Act to set targets and timelines to prevent dangerous climate change, and Bill C-311B, An Act to ensure the Government of Canada is held accountable for meeting its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change; that Bill C-311A be composed of clause 6 of Bill C-311; that Bill C-311B be composed of all remaining parts of Bill C-311; that the House order the printing of bills C-311A and C-311B; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make such technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion; and that, if Bill C-311A has not been reported back to the House by the tenth sitting day after October 19, 2009, it shall be deemed to have been reported back without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North. I thank you for reading the motion, because that means I do not have to. However, I do want to explain it and explain why this motion is being brought forward.

Just a few moments ago, the chair of the environment committee brought forth a motion from the committee to basically ask for an extension and delay of 30 sitting days for the examination of Bill C-311, which is the climate change accountability act. I have to say that there is absolutely no legitimate reason for delaying consideration of this bill.

This has caused the NDP to bring forward this motion this morning in the House to instruct the committee to separate the bill and to ensure that the bill will now be examined in two parts. Part A would deal with the targets that are set in the bill and they would be brought back into the House by the 10th sitting day after October 19, which would be November 2. If the committee fails to do that, the bill will be deemed to have been reported back without amendment.

I would like to explain why we are doing this. I think members are aware that this bill was first debated in March 2009. It was actually sent to the committee on April 1 of this year. In our opinion, the committee has had ample time to deal with this very urgent matter. I would say that our goal all along has been very clear. This very substantive and important bill needed to be debated and processed through the House in order to be approved, we hope, in time for the international climate change conference in Copenhagen in November.

It was with deep concern that we learned that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development voted to delay this bill for no good reason. From the email we get, the folks we talk to in our ridings and the strong environmental community across this country, I think it is very clear that Canadians believe that government after government has dragged its feet on climate change.

There has been no substantive action, whether by the Conservative government or by the previous Liberal government. This bill that we have brought forward both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, and in fact it was approved in the last Parliament, is a strong effort to say that the will of Parliament should be brought forward to Copenhagen and that the will of the Canadian people to see action by our government on climate change and to set clear targets is something that is fundamental to the direction and the health and safety of Canadians and the future of our planet.

It was with dismay that we saw that various members of the House are trying to delay this bill. I think we have to ask why this bill is being delayed, because there is no legitimate reason to do so. The bill is actually very clear and straightforward. In fact, clause 6, which is the clause that we are now saying should be brought back to House by the 10th sitting day, through this debate today, is the clause that deals with the interim greenhouse gas emissions and sets out a target plan for 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045.

The target plan clearly lays out that it would establish a Canadian greenhouse gas emissions target for each of those years; specify the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target, including consideration of the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the most stringent greenhouse gas emissions targets adopted by other national governments, and it would show that each target is consistent with a responsible contribution by Canada to the UNFCCC's ultimate objective of preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and with Parliament’s strong commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

The separation of the bill and what we have now been forced to do is necessary in order to ensure that Canada has set targets and that those targets will be met. We want to go to that conference in Copenhagen knowing that Canada will finally have some legitimacy. After so many years of delay and inaction, we want to have a bill that speaks for the Canadian people on the issue of climate change.

When this was first debated in the House, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, who introduced the bill, gave one of the most beautiful speeches I have ever heard in the House. It was passionate, articulate and full of scientific fact. It was about his own riding. I remember one of the things that he said:

Opinion polls keep saying that 80% of Canadians favour strict measures to reduce emissions, yet our own governments have been impotent and unwilling to confront what will be the defining issue of the 21st century: a changing climate and a dying world.

The next world conference in Copenhagen this December will provide another opportunity to regain some stature on the vital issue of climate change. This act would help re-establish our credibility at the bargaining table and increase the chances of persuading major developing countries to take on such commitments. In this 40th Parliament, we have one last opportunity to take real action to prevent the threat of worsening economic and health effects of climate pollution. Bill C-311 would ensure that the government is accountable to Canadians on climate change and that Canada is accountable to the world.

That is a perfect summary of what this issue is about and why it is so urgent. All the more shame for what took place at the environment committee and the fact that there is an attempt now to slow down this bill so that it will not make it through the House in time for the Copenhagen conference.

As New Democrats, we are committed to doing everything we can for Canadians to ensure that this legitimate and credible and very sound bill does come before the House for a vote. We hope that it will be passed. We hope that a majority of members of Parliament will listen to their constituents about what needs to be done in this country, to take a stand and set real targets for climate change. Nothing less will suffice.

We regret that this debate is taking place today. It should not have to take place. The bill should have come out of committee. I am sure witnesses were lined up. I am sure all kinds of people were ready to debate the bill clause by clause. I am not on the committee so I do not know if there would have been some amendments. I find it most disturbing that it appears the bill is being deliberately delayed.

This motion is to put on the record how urgent this issue is. The bill must come back from committee. The motion before us is clear. It asks the committee to examine clause 6 that deals with the interim targets and get the bill back into the House by November 2.

This is a very straightforward and transparent motion about what needs to be done. I implore members of the House to ensure that we rise above the partisan politics and whatever political agendas are operating here and think about what Canadians sent us here to do. I implore members to think about the most urgent issue facing our country and our planet: climate change. It is shameful that in the international community Canada has such a terrible record.

Let us deal with this legislation and get it through the House. Let us hear witnesses--