If the Premier of British Columbia continues to maintain that British Columbians and the Government of British Columbia reject Enbridge’s twin toxic pipelines, will the Prime Minister agree to rescind approval and respect the province of British Columbia’s jurisdiction and the collective will of British Columbians, or does he intend to force it down our throats?

Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. After carefully reviewing the independent regulator’s report, the government accepts the recommendation to impose 209 conditions on the project. It will be up to the proponent to show the regulator and Canadians that those conditions have been met.

The post Oral Questions – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Prime Minister once urged the province of Alberta to resist heavy-handed tactics from a hostile federal government. Will he ensure that the project does not go ahead unless British Columbians accept it?

Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, the joint review panel has submitted its recommendation to the government. Projects will only be approved if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. We are carefully reviewing this recommendation and a response will be forthcoming.

The post Oral Question – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

My question is for the Prime Minister this. Was the $26 million well spent? If so, will he implement the recommendations? If not, why not? Was it only short-term public relations in announcing the commission, or are we serious about Fraser River sockeye salmon?

Gail Shea: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to long-term support of the salmon fishery in British Columbia, which is why we established the commission in the first place.

We have introduced several measures that are consistent with recommendations from the commission, which include the moratorium on aquaculture developed in the Discovery Islands.

We are investing $25 million in the recreational fisheries conservation partnership fund. All of the revenues from the salmon conservation stamp will now be provided directly to the Pacific Salmon Foundation for use in its projects. We are providing $54 million to enhance the regulatory certainty for the aquaculture sector to provide greater support to science directed at aquaculture.

The post Oral Questions (Fisheries and Oceans) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall this is a narrative that has come up a few times in terms of the rights of members of Parliament in positions like mine, members of Parliament of a smaller party that does not yet have 12 members and has not yet become recognized in that sense, and the rights of independent members of Parliament. We know the principles here: that in theory all members of Parliament are equal and that we are here as members of Parliament, as many of your rulings have attested, Mr. Speaker, with the right and responsibility to turn our attention to every single piece of legislation that goes through this place and to have a meaningful opportunity to present amendments to improve legislation.

My intention with this point of order is not to draw it out. I will be as succinct as I possibly can be. I would like to review the factual situation in which I find myself and then distinguish for you the current situation from the normal situation within committees.

The situation in which I find myself is that owing to the rules of parliamentary procedure, members of Parliament in my position—either members of smaller parties or independents—on the face of it have a right to present substantive amendments at report stage because we are not allowed to be full members, or members at all, of parliamentary committees.

Mr. Speaker, since you will recall it, I will not drag out with precedents and reminders of citations the occasion on which the hon. government House leader attempted in November 2012 to suggest that persons such as me—and in fact he referred to the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands as the impetus for his efforts—should not be allowed to present substantive amendments at report stage but should put forward a test amendment, and if that one failed, none of the rest of the amendments would be heard at all.

Mr. Speaker, you ruled in December 2012 that this would not be sufficient. You cited with approval the words of former Speaker John Fraser, who on October 10, 1989, said that “…we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.”

You went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that since I did not have the right to present any amendments at committee, I must have the right to present them at report stage. Then your ruling went on to create something of a crack in the door that said that if a “satisfactory mechanism” can be found for a member in a position such as mine to have amendments considered at committee, then I would not have a double ability to come back at report stage.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives in the House used that crack in the door from your December 2012 ruling to great effect. They created identical motions that were presented by Conservative members of Parliament in every committee right after the Speech from the Throne in the fall of 2013, and I have been living under that new set of rules.

Since my point of order at the moment deals specifically with the House committee on procedure and House affairs, I can refer to its motion, although in point of fact all the motions passed by every committee were identical. This was a motion put forward and approved by the committee on October 29, 2013. I will not read all of it. I will just summarize it.

If I and other members in my position want to have amendments considered for legislation, we must present them to the committee 48 hours ahead of when the committee begins clause-by-clause study, and the committee process will deem that the motions were moved, because not being a member of the committee, I of course cannot move them. As well, I cannot debate them and I cannot participate fully before the committee during testimony of witnesses.

I do not believe that this process is satisfactory at all. Mr. Speaker, the intent of your decision in the fall of 2012 was clear: that the process should be satisfactory to both the committee and to members in my situation.

However, I have lived with this set of rules. I am doing my best to live with this set of rules. I have endeavoured to present amendments 48 hours ahead of clause by clause and to participate, even within the very tight strictures of the rules.

However, here is the key one. At paragraph (c):

Forgive me for taking a moment to say the following. The chair of the procedure and House affairs committee dealing with Bill C-23 did an exemplary job. He was fair to a fault and did an extraordinary job in terms of his personal efforts to maintain an amicable atmosphere among all parties in a very controversial and highly charged bill. I do not for one moment blame the chair for the fact that he was prevented from fulfilling a condition, a condition precedent to anything that then occurred with my involvement in committee.

I presented my amendments. They were deemed to be put forward, but I was denied in the case of the surviving 11 amendments, which were past the point of 5:00 p.m. last Thursday. There was no debate allowed on my amendments, and I was prevented from making any representation, brief or otherwise, on my amendments.

I want to go back for a moment to the normal situation. I think that many in this place, particularly some who want to deny me my rights at this point, will go back to the default position that a committee is the master of its own affairs. A committee made the decision; the committee decided it had to finish its work by five o’clock by debate so that by midnight all the clause by clause could be through. It really does not matter that democracy in this place is diminished by such a rule. The idea is that the committee made the rule and the Speaker cannot interfere.

This condition, this situation, is remarkably different. It is completely distinguished from and different from the ruling that, for instance, you gave in relation to the member for Kings—Hants, who complained of a similar process. Your ruling of November 29, 2012, deals with that particular set of parameters, a committee process in which the Speaker is not engaged. The Speaker, as I know is the usual wisdom, has no business interfering with the business of committee, because the committees are the masters of their own affairs—except in this instance.

It is only owing to your ruling that my rights at report stage can be infringed, my rights at report stage can be reduced, my rights at report stage can be essentially eliminated if a process, pursuant to your ruling, is found to be satisfactory. Only due to your ruling was this new process invented. The new process states unequivocally that the chair shall allow a member with diminished rights, no ability to participate fully, no ability to vote, no ability to even move my own amendments, no ability to ask the witnesses questions. It is a very circumscribed, limited, and I think in some ways fraudulent opportunity.

However, there is a minimum thing that this motion passed in every committee insists upon for every amendment that I have put forward for clause-by-clause consideration as a member of Parliament, with rights equal to everyone in this place. The same applies for the other independents, whether Edmonton—St. Albert, Peterborough, the members who represent the Bloc Québécois, other members within the Green Party, or the member for Ahuntsic: we have the right to work on every bill in this place, whether we are members of committee or not.

This new construct has been created. We have put ourselves within it. Many of us, not just myself, have worked very hard to present amendments during clause by clause, knowing that we will have at a minimum 60 seconds per amendment to describe our amendments and argue for them.

In this instance, I submit to you that the Conservative majority is hoist by its own petard. It cannot shut down debate at five o’clock on a Thursday and gavel through everything, thus precluding independents and smaller parties from presenting their amendments later at report stage. It can have one or the other; it cannot have both.

It forced us into this process of running from committee to committee for clause-by-clause study. At a minimum we must be allowed to present our amendments in the committee. If that right is removed unilaterally, then I submit to you that there is no question but that we revert to the general rules of parliamentary procedure, those found in O’Brien and Bosc, which are very clear that members of Parliament in my position and others in smaller parties and independents have a right to present substantive amendments at report stage. That is what I intend to do tomorrow.

I urge and I hope that you will rule that because the committee failed to live up to its own motion, it is no longer a situation of the committee making its own rules.

The committee has constructed this fake opportunity and herded members of Parliament from smaller parties and independents. We are exhorted—not just encouraged and invited, but in a sense coerced—into a process not of our choosing.

Mr. Speaker, since it was owing to your ruling that this fake process was invented, at a minimum they have to live up to it. If they fail to, then it reverts to our normal rule that we have the right to present amendments at report stage in clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23.

The post Oral Questions – Point of Order appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I had the great honour of knowing and working with Herb Gray before I was in politics, in the political sense, at all. Herb Gray, as deputy prime minister, played a key role that many members here may not know in saving the Kyoto protocol when George Bush first became president of the United States.

In the fall of 2000, the negotiations in The Hague broke down. The U.S. elections were still hanging in the balance and no one knew who would be the U.S. administration. As those negotiations broke down, they were resumed in the summer of 2001.

The minister of environment of the day, David Anderson, had fallen and was unable to attend due to a serious injury. It was a sign of the priority of the issue and that which the government of the day regarded the issue that no less than the deputy prime minister went to The Hague to negotiate on behalf of Canada.

For Herb Gray’s efforts, and they were extraordinary, the organization with which I worked at the time, the Sierra Club Canada, gave him our highest award for someone in public life who served the environment. The award, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is in the name of your predecessor, John Fraser. It was the John Fraser Award for Environmental Achievement.

We had a splendid dinner honouring Herb Gray. He delivered a witty and sage address. After he left Parliament in 2002 and went on to become the Canadian Commissioner to the International Joint Commission, which is another environmental post, I often went to visit him in his offices to discuss the Great Lakes.

He never failed to take me to this wall and say “I had so many honours for my work in public life, but I want you to notice this, Elizabeth, I have only got two of my awards that I brought with me to this office”: the citation “Right Honourable Herb Gray”, such a rare citation to anyone who has not served as a Prime Minister of Canada, and the original print from Robert Bateman with the award, the John Fraser Award for Environmental Achievement to Herb Gray. He said, “I am prouder of this and for what I did on climate change than almost anything else in public life, because my grandchildren thanked me for it.”

I will miss Herb Gray. He served his country but, in case any members did not know, he also served this planet.

The post Oral Questions (Right Hon. Herb Gray) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Is this administration, under the Prime Minister, committed to the pledge he made in Copenhagen?

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, our sector-by-sector regulatory approach is working. It is part of our government’s commitment to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong.

Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down by close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. This is equivalent to shutting down 37 coal-fired electricity generation plants, and we are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP’s $20 billion job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am so gratified to have a follow-up question, because this repeated nonsense about bringing down emissions by 130 megatonnes over what they would have been in some imaginary universe is not helpful.

The Prime Minister’s pledge in Copenhagen was straightforward. It was 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Environment Canada’s data now says levels will be virtually unchanged from 2005 levels in 2020.

The question is simple. Does this administration have any intention of keeping its promise?

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what our government’s action has accomplished. Since 2006, our government has invested significant funds in more efficient technologies, better infrastructure and adaptation, and clean energy. We have taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions in this country, the transportation and electricity sectors. In fact, in the first 21 years of our coal regulations, we expect a cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing 2.6 million vehicles per year from the road.

We hope that the opposition gets on side with these.

The post Oral Questions (The Environment) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Yesterday, the minister said our greenhouse gases would be 130 megatonnes less than what they would have been under the Liberals. That number, picked out of the air, is known as the “business as usual” target.

Here is the math. The Copenhagen pledge made by this Prime Minister, no previous prime minister, was to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Environment Canada now says that by 2020, emission levels will be virtually unchanged.

Is Canada still committed to the Copenhagen target? Why does this minister seem to believe that business as usual is government under some other party?

Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to address climate change.

Since 2006, we have invested more than $10 billion in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, adaptation, cleaner technology, and cleaner fuels. Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down by 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberal government.

We are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

The post Oral Questions (The Environment) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move that this House acknowledge that the value of Canada’s democratic institution, as the life of this country, cannot be reduced to value for tax dollars or return on investment; recognize that Canadians expect responsibility, transparency, and accountability from their elected representatives; and invite the Auditor General to conduct a comprehensive audit of the House of Commons’ expenses, including members of Parliament, in addition to the Office of the Prime Minister, and ministers of cabinet.

I would hope to have unanimous consent so that the House would be treated equally with the Senate.

The Speaker:  I think the members have already expressed it, but I will try anyway.

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: No.

The post Oral Questions – Presence in Gallery appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On the U.S. side of the border, there are concerns raised that because the treaties have not been ratified through the U.S. Senate, these may not be legally binding treaties in any case; and on the Canadian side of the border, no less a legal expert than Peter Hogg, former dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, has written the advice that this very likely will violate section 15 of the Charter by treating some Canadians differently from others.

More than 30 years ago, I learned constitutional law in a textbook he wrote.

What will the minister say to its constitutionality?

Jim Flaherty: Mr. Speaker, I was taught by Peter Hogg as well. I got an A in the tax course.

The question is an important one. It is important for about a million Canadians who also happen to be citizens of the United States.

The Americans initially proposed that there would be a 30% withholding tax and there would be direct reporting by Canadian banks to the IRS. We got rid of that. They have agreed that we will use our existing framework under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, which has been successful.

No new taxes will be imposed. The CRA will not assist the IRS in collecting U.S. taxes.

The post Oral Questions: Canada-US Relations appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Would the Prime Minister tell us why he chose to go after live retirees instead of dead money?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, of course, we maintain tax rates for corporations. We expect them to pay their taxes and we go after them when they do not pay their taxes. However, the question that was asked here concerns the voluntary supplemental health benefits for retirees.

What we are saying is that we believe it is still a subject of discussion at a bargaining table. We have been very clear that we believe that when it is a voluntary plan like that, a Cadillac plan, retirees should pay their own fair share, which would be 50% of the plan. It would still make it one of the best plans one could get in this country.

The post Oral Questions – The Budget appeared first on Elizabeth May.