Bill C-377 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that
Canada meets its global climate change obligations
under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change by committing to a long-term
target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions
to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by
the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the
period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on
the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development to review proposed measures to meet the
targets and submit a report to Parliament.
It also sets out the duties of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, again, the goal is to come up with a fair structure.

Mr. Chair, I really hope I'm wrong, but I read in the newspaper that there was a tactical strategy of some opposition members to try to make this not work. It appears it's going down that road. I'm still hoping for the better, Chair, and I'm going to try to come up with a motion that is going to create fairness and not dominance.

Chair, my concerns were what I saw previously. Bill C-377 is going to be coming up, a very important private member's bill that we will deal with. We need to come up with a witness list, as was mentioned. So, again, we need to have a member on that.

I think Mr. Luc Harvey would provide a balance, a francophone perspective.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

First of all, to be clear, the reason I'm not in favour of that is I think it leads to the very thing you're afraid of, which is the repetition of conversations. In order to have the vote, then we'll have the discussion, and if we've already had the discussion in subcommittee....

The ideal was how the thing worked before, which was the casting out of a calendar, looking at the issues that had come to us all as MPs and deciding which ones were to be proposed forward. Remember that we went through that on the Bill C-30 committee and on Bill C-28. Whenever we're looking at something specific.... We'll do the same for Bill C-377, which is in front of committee, I imagine.

To then put it into the prescription that we have to then take everything back to a vote.... Is it voting on each of the witnesses? Is it voting on the order? I think the best way to do this, as people have described tangentially, is to avoid the issue of voting. As the government has admitted, if the opposition chooses to just use that in concert, then the voting system doesn't work for their favour.

The reason I had originally posed my motion was to allow a government member on the table. The reason I had prescribed not a parliamentary secretary was to avoid what we'd seen last time, which was not the only factor but I believe was a contributing factor to the partisanship.

I think we should just vote on this motion as is. I appreciate you trying to achieve some consensus, but I think we have what we have and we need to try this and look at the Bali conference and the Bill C-377 legislation, which will likely be the first two areas of concentration. Try this at least until Christmas.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. It appears we have a few moments and to save time later I will inform members of something they are just aching to hear about now.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members' business from session to session within a Parliament.

The list for the consideration of private members' business established on April 7, 2006, continues from the last session to this session notwithstanding prorogation.

As such, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session.

Generally speaking, in practical terms, this also means that those items on the Order of Precedence remain on the Order of Precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.

However, there is one item that cannot be left on the Order of Precedence. Pursuant to Standing Order 87(1), Parliamentary secretaries who are ineligible by virtue of their office to be put on the Order of Precedence will be dropped to the bottom of the list for the consideration of private members' business, where they will remain as long as they hold those offices.

Consequently, the item in the name of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Motion M-302, is withdrawn from the Order of Precedence.

With regard to the remaining items on the order of precedence let me remind the House of the specifics since the House is scheduled to resume its daily private members' business hour starting tomorrow.

At prorogation, there were seven private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1:

Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage;

Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; and

Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bills deemed introduced, read the first time, read the second time and referred to a committee)

Furthermore, four Private Members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House:

Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171);

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord;

Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad; and

Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identification information obtained by fraud or false pretence).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to inform the Senate that this House has adopted these four bills.

Hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. The Table officers are available to answer any further questions that hon. members may have.

I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this second session of the 39th Parliament.

(Bills deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

For the benefit of the committee—and Mr. McGuinty should hear this—the research analyst has asked for a little more clarity and specification in terms of what exactly members would like her to do in preparation. What topics would you like her to look at in preparation for next week's study? Now, I indicated earlier that you should get those thoughts to her quickly—but that was about the other issue we dealt with first, Bill C-377, wasn't it?

Would members like to indicate right now any particular topics you'd like the researcher to look at? Otherwise, I'd ask you to get those topics to her by.... I'd ask members, if you have any suggestions now, let's hear them. If not, I'm going to ask you to get them to the clerk by five o'clock tomorrow, who can then pass them on to the research analyst.

I think I have Mr. Bigras, and then Mr. Godfrey.

[The Clerk]

As of right now, the only additional piece of business the main committee has given itself is Mr. McGuinty's motion next Thursday, June 7. There will also be, as you decided, a steering committee meeting that the chair will need to call for next Wednesday to discuss Bill C-377.

The committee hasn't actually set a new date for a meeting on Mr. Warawa's issue of gasification, because our initial schedule in May was changed and the steering committee has adopted something else.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

The motion of Mr. Warawa is that by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, suggestions for witnesses on Bill C-377 be provided to the clerk in advance of the steering committee meeting on Wednesday, June 6.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

At this point we don't have a motion on the floor, do we?

I think there is a desire, a consensus, to have this referred to a steering committee. Mr. Bigras had suggested starting in September. I think that's practical, in the sense that we're scheduled to be here until the 22nd, so we have another three weeks, approximately.

Tomorrow, many of us are going to Berlin to the G-8 plus 5.

Mr. Cullen suggested that we meet Wednesday of next week. We will arrive back on Tuesday, so we'll be a little jet-lagged, but I think having a first meeting of the steering committee would be fine on Wednesday of next week.

During this next week we can provide the clerk with some names, but it wouldn't be a restrictive list of names; that list can evolve. We can start in September with a reconvening of the steering committee, maybe a day before we have the committee meeting. So we can start in September with Bill C-377, with the recommendations of a witness list, and a plan.

If that's okay, I'd like to move a motion that the witness list and the planning be referred to a steering committee, and that the first meeting be Wednesday of next week.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm right on topic, Mr. Warawa. Thank you very much for reminding me.

There's huge uncertainty, and this speaks directly to this bill. We cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. You cannot. We must examine this bill in the context of Bill C-30, in the context of Bill C-288, in the context of CDM, and in the context of what's happening this weekend in Germany. We have to. We have to examine this in a more fulsome context, a larger context. I'm strongly supportive of examining this bill precisely because of the uncertainty created by the government's plan. There is uncertainty internationally, uncertainty in the provinces, uncertainty in the financial markets, uncertainty with industrial players. There's great uncertainty in Canada now. This is where we've arrived.

I think Bill C-377 is going to take us more time rather than less time. I support Mr. Cullen's idea, for example, to bring the IPCC forward to give us some clarity on two-degree, three-degree, five-degree changes going forward. I support the idea of examining the California plan. We heard yesterday that the California plan is to a certain extent aligned with Bill C-377. It's clearly not aligned with where we're going as a country, but it's aligned with Bill C-377, and it's certainly more aligned with Bill C-30.

There's also uncertainty in the European Union. The French president is now saying they're taking the notion of trade sanctions to the European Union to react to countries like Canada, who unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the treaty they've signed. There's uncertainty.

I think this is something we have to examine in some detail. I don't know whether we're going to get to it, Mr. Chair, and get to all these witnesses before the government decides to have the House rise. There's even uncertainty as to when the House is rising.

We're now in a situation where if we can roll out a plan that makes sense, I want to table it.

I think it's important for all of us to keep in mind that we cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. It does speak to a larger question, and once again the greater uncertainty created domestically and internationally by the government's plan.

Thank you very much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, I don't mean to interrupt, but the discussion right now is Bill C-377, and how we are going to plan Bill C-377. So I would encourage Mr. McGuinty to stay on topic.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am more or less in agreement with what the government is proposing. On the substance of it, I want to remind you that my party supports the principle of Bill C-377, even though we consider that it has major flaws. One would be that the first greenhouse gas reduction period, for 2008 to 2012, does not appear in clause 5 of the bill.

Given that we managed, in committee, to amend Bill C-30 and to pass Bill C-288 which has a 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal for the initial period, I feel that this bill deserves study and major amendments, particularly as far as clause 5 is concerned, so that we could incorporate the 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal, which is not part of Bill C-377.

As far as the approach is concerned, I agree entirely with Mr. Warawa. I think that we must wait for the G8 meeting in June, which will probably give us more information. We also have to wait to see what the Senate will say and what will happen to Bill C-288. If it were to come into effect, that would perhaps change the aspects we would want to work on in Bill C-377.

I am suggesting more or less the same thing as Mr. Warawa. When we look at our agenda, we can see that we have little time left. We know that several committee members will not be here on June 5^th, because they will be in Germany. In the full knowledge that there will probably be a proposal that we'll have to vote on in a few minutes, I think that we will, indeed, have to draw up a witness list and prepare a schedule to study Bill C-377 at the steering committee, as Mr. Warawa has moved. I believe we will be in a position, when we return in September, to study the bill with a witness list and a well-structured agenda.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It sounds great, Mr. Chair.

We've obviously been giving this some consideration. This is just in colloquial to remind committee members that this is Mr. Layton's private member's bill.

This bill was originally designed to take us from 2012 and beyond, because we knew that in play were the government's efforts around clean air and climate change, which became the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, and Mr. Rodriguez's bill. This piece was meant to follow. We've thrown over some ideas about who we think we need to hear from.

The timing of this is kind of fortunate because of the conversations going on in the global context right now. Some of us will be at the global forum leading to the G-8 plus 5.

Bali is the next round of the United Nations meetings that takes us beyond the Kyoto concept. For those of us who have been involved in some of the international negotiations, the main concern at the international community level is that there be no gap between the commitments made in the Kyoto round and the next round, that the negotiations have a natural flow, and that countries recommit to new targets to take us beyond 2012.

Bill C-377 is meant to be that piece, so that Parliament wrestles with the idea of what comes next. We all know the context and the struggles with what happened around the first commitment period. There's an effort to get it right for the second one, because in a sense the second one is where Canada in particular is going to have the most bearing and weight on our domestic policies. I'm sure there are lots of comments on that.

What we're suggesting today is that we have not a brainstorm, Chair, but a throwing in of ideas, and that we then turn to the clerk, or Tim, or whoever may be advising us on a work plan.

Is Tim not with us any more? We're Tim-less. That's okay. Don't over-rely.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Colleagues, the meeting is called to order.

I'm sorry to be late. I had another meeting. It is Luc's fault as he slowed me down when I was on my way here.

No, he doesn't want to accept responsibility. We walked in here together, but we were both a minute late. So my apologies.

We have two orders of business today. The first relates to Bill C-377, an act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. The second is a notice of motion from Mr. McGuinty, which we'll get to a little later.

I understand from the clerk that the chair, Mr. Mills, has suggested that we first discuss how we want to deal with Bill C-377. We haven't had a discussion to determine our decision about what kind of work plan we would have in relation to this bill, so we should talk about how to organize the committee's work and perhaps about the number of meetings we think we need to have on this bill.

I haven't seen any hands yet, but I think Mr. Cullen would like to talk about a proposed work plan for this, so I'm going to invite him to do so. How does that sound?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

This is one of many times that the Liberals have attempted to change the decision of the committee. We have an agenda. We were going to deal with the issue of looking at practical solutions on how to deal with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, carbon sequestration, coal-bed methane, and gasification. Those are the three we sidetracked to deal with in Bill C-377. Now again there's an attempt to take us off the agenda, to change the agenda at the last minute.

We've had a good discussion. The main estimates are before us. We need to deal with them and vote to return the main estimates to the House without changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.

I'd like to thank our witnesses again for a job well done, and I thank all the members.

I want to remind members that on our first Tuesday back we have the minister. A notice will be coming from the clerk. I will be discussing with a member of each party what we're going to do to progress at the meeting on Thursday, the 31st. I believe we tentatively set Bill C-377—I believe that's the number, but whatever the number is, Mr. Cullen, we will discuss it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

In order to have a steering committee, we would need a motion that we rescind the orders that we voted on earlier and that we establish a steering committee. Obviously that motion, if it's put, needs to be debated. I think all of us have expressed that.

My hope was that we could accomplish this just by sitting down and saying this is the schedule we agreed to. It seems to me it's not that difficult. We have very few meetings, and yes, we have witnesses already arranged. We obviously have deadlines of the minister appearing. We have a deadline on Bill C-377, but that's a little bit further out, and so on. But it would seem to me that we could come to a conclusion. It's not rocket science.

Mr. Warawa.