Bill C-288 (Historical)

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. It requires the Minister of the Environment to establish an annual Climate Change Plan and to make regulations respecting climate change. It also requires the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise the Minister — to the extent that it is within its purpose — on the effectiveness of the plans, and requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report of the progress in the implementation of the plans.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we now approach the preamble, I sincerely wish I could commend the honourable member for his concerns about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but Bill C-288 doesn't take us in that direction. That being said, the essence of his private member's bill is seriously flawed. We heard that from all the witnesses, except one.

I'd like to take the opportunity to speak on three specific points of the preamble that illustrate the concerns the government has on Bill C-288.

First, the focus of Bill C-288, which is the achievement of Canada's short-term Kyoto target, needs to be examined. Our government has initiated a discussion about what it would mean for Canada to achieve its first commitment period of the Kyoto target. This target can only be achieved within the short period of time remaining by spending over $20 billion of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

As we heard from a diverse group of witnesses at this committee, it may not even be feasible to buy all the needed credits to reach the short-term target set by the Liberals under the Kyoto Protocol and copied again into Bill C-288.

In the opinion of the government, it would be more appropriate to focus on the economic transformation needed to transform our economy in a way that would lead to more significant and sustained reductions in emissions by investing in improving Canadian energy and urban infrastructure. That's what we need to do.

As Bill C-288 states, Canada's target under Kyoto was 6% below 1990 emission levels. When we took office in early 2006, not that many months ago, domestic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 were nearly 35% above the Kyoto target for Canada set by the Liberals, according to the latest available figure provided by the officials of Environment Canada.

Our government was forthright that the 2008 to 2012 Kyoto short-term targets cannot be met without spending over $20 billion of Canadian tax dollars to purchase international credits.

One of the witnesses, Jayson Myers, chief economist for the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, calculated that the technological process in reducing emission intensity would have to accelerate by 700% during the next five years to meet Canada's Kyoto target by 2012. Mr. Myers based his estimate on the international price of $20 per tonne, an assumption that he noted may even be low. The actual cost of meeting our short-term target under the Kyoto Protocol would cost considerably more than the $20 billion.

We also heard from Professor Mark Jaccard, head of the Energy and Materials Research Group in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. In a recent C.D. Howe report, he wrote that the previous climate change plan, project green, the Liberal answer to meeting the Kyoto short-term target, would have cost Canadians $12 billion by 2012, with much of that money being spent outside Canada. Professor Jaccard concluded that if Canada were to implement and continue with the previous Liberal plan, Canada would spend at least $80 billion over the next 35 years without reducing greenhouse gas emissions from current levels.

Obviously, Bill C-288 is not a good plan.

This is the crux of the issue. Do we spend billions of Canadian tax dollars internationally to buy international credits, or do we spend Canadian taxpayers' money on improving Canadian energy and Canadian urban infrastructure to reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions right here in Canada?

Canada's new government is taking a new approach by integrating action on air pollution and climate change to protect the health of Canadians and the global environment. Emissions of smog and acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions come from many of the same industrial and transportation sources. To be more effective, action needs to be integrated. Regulations that address climate change in isolation could effectively force industries to invest in technologies and processes that address greenhouse gases, while locking in capital stock that continues to emit air pollutants that endanger the health of Canadians--not the best government environmental and economic policy, obviously, Mr. Chairman. This is what Bill C-288 suggests that we do.

For that reason, Canada's new government will establish short-, medium-, and long-term reduction targets for both air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Our plan will achieve concrete results through mandatory enforceable regulations with short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets. The short-term targets will be announced by spring 2007. Regulations establishing mandatory standards will replace the voluntary approaches that failed in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and their objectives are achieved.

An integrated and coordinated approach for air pollutants and greenhouse gases makes sense because most sources of air pollutants are also the sources of greenhouse gas emissions. By taking action on both, our government will maximize the benefits to Canadians and allow industry to find ways to reduce both air pollutants and greenhouse gases in a way that helps industry maintain its economic competitiveness.

To recap, our opposition to Bill C-288 is related to its unrealistic short-term focus and the massive, ineffective costs that will come with that focus. In our view, it's important to approach the issue in a way that will ensure reductions in the short term, but that will also set the foundation for continued and more significant reductions over the long term.

It's even more important that these funds be spent here at home. Our second fundamental concern with Bill C-288 is that countries with targets now under the Kyoto Protocol account for less than 30% of global emissions—72% of global emissions are not included under the Kyoto Protocol. That's 72%.

For future international cooperation on climate change to be effective, all emitting countries need to do their part to reduce emissions. The emissions target of the Kyoto Protocol, as noted above, cover only 23 countries, plus the 15 members of the European Union taken together. By 2010, developing countries are expected to contribute 45% of global greenhouse emissions, and China and India, together, will experience greater growth in emissions than all OECD countries combined. China alone, in 1996, accounted for over 13% of carbon emissions, second to the United States, and on plausible projections for the two economies, China is expected to reach U.S. emissions levels by 2013. That's not that far away. Effective action cannot be taken by a relatively small group of countries alone.

Finally, the lack of a comprehensive coverage creates only potential problems within the Kyoto Protocol. Economic activities might relocate from countries with greenhouse gas emission ceilings to countries without those ceilings. Through such leakage, even the impact of greenhouse gas concentrations of effective action by the Annex B countries would be reduced. Apart from weakening the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, such leakage would also involve costly adjustments by workers, firms, and towns that were brought about not by changes in economic efficiency but by a regulatory system with incomplete coverage.

Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol would not deny the fundamental point that key developing countries must eventually participate. They would argue, however, that someone must start the process, and it is natural that the world's richest and most heavily emitting countries do so.

Kyoto is only a first step toward solving the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. We must anticipate what the next step must be. We need to anticipate that. For those covered in Annex B, the natural next step is to lower the emission ceilings now set for 2012, to achieve, for example, 80% of 1990 emissions by 2022. If the Kyoto targets are reached, developing countries, as a group, will have CO₂ emissions equal to those of the Annex B countries by 2013--and growing.

How are these companies to be brought into the Kyoto framework, as they must be, if further impact on a global climate change is to be mitigated? That is why Canada is a major player in the United Nations-led climate change negotiations for longer-term reductions well after the end of the first Kyoto Protocol reporting period of 2012. We've also been clear that Canada will work with other countries to help advance the long-term approach to tackling climate change. Our government's actions at home will be the basis for future international cooperative efforts to address climate change.

Mr. Chair, as I've said before, we've heard from the witnesses that Bill C-288 is not the bill that will adequately address the issue of climate change. We've heard time and time again that it's the government's plan with Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act. Mr. Chair, we need to listen to what the witnesses said. We dare not forge ahead with a bill that has as its sole purpose trying to sabotage what the government is trying to do to clean up the air.

Mr. Chair, we are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bill C-288 will not do that. The experts have told us it won't work. Bill C-288 will not work, yet we see the Liberals forging ahead and planning on the fly.

Mr. Chair, I think I've made it very clear--I think each of us has--and I think the witnesses have made it very clear that we dare not forge ahead with Bill C-288. I'd ask the members of the Liberal Party, the members of the Bloc Party, and the NDP, please, do not play games. Work together with the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stop the games, and let's vote against Bill C-288.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, clause 1 is the short title, as I just said. I will be speaking on the preamble after we deal with this.

On the short title, it says:

This Act may be cited as the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

That's what we're talking about.

The only point I would make is that it's unfortunate the previous government didn't do what it should have done when it had the opportunity. So this Bill C-288 is mischief. It's trying to make the Liberals appear to care now about the environment, with the support of Bloc members and, unfortunately, the NDP.

Mr. Chair, it's all about optics; it has nothing to do with reality. We heard from the witnesses. Every one of the witnesses, except for one, said this bill is unachievable. We had a scathing report by the commissioner on the previous government for lacking leadership and lacking a plan. We had a scathing report from the witnesses. Yet we're forging ahead with a bill that is not enforceable. Their plan is to spend billions of dollars to buy targets, and there are not enough targets out there—credits they can buy—as we heard as recently as two days ago. So the plan, which has been amended on the fly, is a bad bill.

The Government of Canada has a good bill and will definitely will not be supporting their plan to disrupt and sabotage the plans of the government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

As I said, I've had the pleasure of enforcing laws and I've been the guy wearing the uniform out on the front line. I've been the guy doing this. If you take a look at the act I have in my hand right now, the Canadian Environmental Protect Act, part 10 is enforcement.

Contrary to the way in which Mr. Godfrey has already misled this committee, clearly here is a part 10 enforcement dealing with the definitions that apply in this part, and they include designation of enforcement officers and analysts: “The Minister may designate as enforcement officers or analysts for the purposes of this Act, or any provision of this Act”.

We have nothing like that. While the wording on the enforcement section might be similar in Bill C-288 to other acts that he is comparing it with, what's missing in Bill C-288 is a designation of enforcement. It's completely missing. It's completely void from this bill, which makes this bill, Mr. Chairman, impotent and completely useless.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So we're talking less than 24 hours ago. This substantial clause, a new clause added to Bill C-288, was introduced less than 24 hours ago, and Mr. Godfrey is trying to convince this committee that it was well thought out, wasn't on the fly, and was presented here with great thought in great time.

Mr. Chair, I think the facts show quite the contrary. This is very much on the fly and very inappropriate.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to the two comments made, first from Mr. Bigras, absolutely, I do agree that Bill C-30 is far superior. Bill C-288 does not meet the targets that Canadians want in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants. That's why I'm so excited about Bill C-30, and hopefully there will be good healthy discussion on that, and your support on that—or his support, speaking through you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Rodriguez did make a comment that he's consulted with the commissioner. As I said, she was here as a witness two days ago and those questions were not asked of her regarding this motion. He said he has consulted her. I would ask, through you, for him to table her letter. He said she supports this. I would ask for her written response that she supports this, because I don't believe she does. I believe this is a policy on the fly, which the Liberals are famous for, and it gets the government into big trouble; it got them into trouble. We will not do that, Mr. Chair. We will do things properly.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I want to come back to the question I asked earlier about the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, was released 18 months late, in relation to the five-year objective. That means it took six and a half years for that report to be released, and yet people are saying it's not a problem and the Commissioner will be able to issue a report every two years.

One has reason to wonder whether that is really realistic because we know that the last time, it took six and a half years.

The other problem has to do with the method for counting CO₂ emissions. At this time, a number of industries do not have access to the technology.

I agree on the need to protect widows and orphans, as well as the environment, but I do have some very serious questions about this, particularly in terms of what there is an attempt to include in Bill C-288 to make it nice. I have the feeling that, as usual, it's going to be just smoke and mirrors — the kind of thing where there is movement, but not necessarily progress.

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

I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying. It's quite true that it could widened to include the pollution. Indeed, I invite him to table an amendment, when we review Bill C-30, to make that part of the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and we can debate it then. I'm not saying I'm opposed, but I think the government's strategy since this morning has been to try and refocus the debate on Bill C-30, when in actual fact, we are examining Bill C-288.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

In response to Mr. Bigras' comment, you don't do things like this on the fly; you do them properly.

As I said in my comments, should this reporting for proper accountability on the environment include pollution and air quality? Should we be looking at water quality and the pollution of the lands in Canada?

I said this should invoke good healthy discussion, but to have it inserted on the fly into Bill C-288 I don't think is good procedure.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Two days ago we had the commissioner here. She was one of the witnesses. This was not brought up; she was not questioned on this. So here we are with this on-the-fly type of legislation, which of course the Liberals are known for. One of the reasons the witnesses shared with us is that the Kyoto targets are not achievable.

I would not support this. It's not in the mandate of the commissioner. She was not questioned about this even as recently as two days ago.

Yes, we need more accountability on the environment, but this is, again, on the fly. This deals just with the climate change. If we want to discuss--not through Bill C-288--the accountability on the environment through the commissioner, that needs to be discussed thoroughly. On air pollution, we know that's a big, important issue for the health of Canadians. The quality of water and the land--there are a lot of issues that would invoke a healthy discussion.

To create a new clause in Bill C-288 on the fly, as the Liberals are famous for, I think is inappropriate, and I will not be supporting this.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I really like the contrast, the other, better plan that was referenced here before--the government plan--because what we are finding in this Bill C-288 is that it doesn't do the job in terms of cleaning up in the country.

As one well-known person in our Parliament, Mr. Ignatieff, has said, “We'll clean up Kazakhstan, but we won't clean up downtown Toronto,” and that's the nature of Bill C-288. We need to have a more thorough plan. The government plan does exactly that in contrast to this very weak and failed kind of bill that's before us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, if you could try to keep it to Bill C-288, I think that's a reasonable request, and of course, one that we started out with. So try to relate it to clause 10, if possible.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to Mr. Calkins, a reading of what is planned to be developed in Bill C-30, since we're talking about Bill C-288.... I know the government wants committee members to work together. Reading out a list of what the government has proposed in a completely different bill seems to me out of order when we're talking about Bill C-288.

We've been through this a number of times. If we're looking to waste time, then this is a way to proceed. I'd encourage all the committee members to raise valid arguments in debate, but not to delve into other bills. Let's talk about what's at hand.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, it's important to realize that we on the government side support the recommendations of the commissioner concerning accountability and transparency. As my colleague Mr. Godfrey has said, that is our hallmark, and I appreciate he recognizes that.

The aspects of Bill C-288, though, such as accountability and transparency that would accompany the filing of regular climate change plans before Parliament, are positive proposals we support, including the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the process of developing climate change targets and timelines. In fact, the national round table is engaged in this activity currently in support of the government plan.

Therefore, the idea of using the national round table to provide advice to the minister for accountability and transparency is already in place in the government's proposed plan. The government has an integrated plan to deal with both greenhouse gases and air pollution. On air pollutants, the government plan is to establish national objectives for ambient air, particulate matter, and ozone for the periods of 2025 and 2050.

The government's plan is also to establish national emission reduction targets that reach to 2050 for total emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, gaseous ammonia, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and for the following sectors: the oil and gas sector; the electricity sector; base metals; iron and steel; aluminum; cement; chemicals; forest products; transportation; consumer products; and commercial, institutional, residential, and agricultural sectors.

On greenhouse gases, the government's plan will—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I'm looking over this particular clause about regulations. The first line states that the government “may” make regulations. That's problematic for me and my colleagues. They “may” make regulations related to measures, to standards, to enforcement. On the use of the word “may”, obviously a good grammarian would know it suggests that the government may or may not, or may use other policy instruments to achieve these aforementioned measures and standards and enforcements.

Our government has put out a plan that would in fact make it mandatory, required, to strengthen the ability to reduce air emissions nationwide, to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The intent of this particular clause is to give the government the authority to implement regulations and other measures to control greenhouse gas emissions by building on the extensive authorities that already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The new government legislation on clean air would in fact provide a much stronger basis than what we have before us here today when it says “may”. Among other things, for example, the government legislation, contra what we have here, would require ministers of the environment and health to establish national air quality objectives, to monitor them, and to report on their attainment. It would authorize the development of regulations to reduce outdoor and indoor air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. It would authorize the development of emissions trading schemes, which have proven very effective in the United States of America and also in Europe. And it would give the government extensive information-gathering and reporting powers expressly tailored to greenhouse gases and air pollutants. I would think my NDP colleague Mr. Cullen would probably be agreeable to the fact that we need to make it more forceful, by way of not just simply a “may”.

Our government's proposed legislation as well, contra this particular piece here, would enable the federal government to enter into equivalency agreements that recognize provincial or territorial licensing or permitting regimes as equivalent, so long as those regimes are as stringent in terms of environment and health protection as national regulations are. That's our government's approach, which is something members from the Bloc Québécois should support, as it would enable the Province of Quebec to regulate its own polluters. But for that, the Quebec government would need to put in place legislation and appropriate regulations. I would be hopeful that Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lussier would support that at the time, because it's much stronger and it respects provincial jurisdiction as well.

The government plan, also contra this bill, would enhance the Energy Efficiency Act. It would give the federal government the authority to provide stronger energy efficiency standards for a wide range of consumer and commercial products, such as household appliances and electrical goods. That actually would directly impact on the health and the environment of all Canadians, which is something I believe and others around this room would agree that Canadians do want to see. We're waiting to see that implemented.

Finally, contra this particular proposed legislation, the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-30, would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to modernize government's ability. Bill C-288 doesn't do that. Bill C-30 would allow the government authority to regulate new motor vehicle fuel consumption. It is important to set that fuel consumption standard to help to ensure greenhouse gases from the vehicles that we buy.

The time for alternatives really has passed. The previous administration tried some voluntary approaches, and that's what we have here again in the word “may”. Unfortunately, they failed. We need a much stronger mandate than that, and the government plans to have regulations that do in fact put the onus, the liability, on the regulated community. To make those emission reductions that contribute to clean air, the air quality objectives must be set by ministers under the act, in a mandate fashion. In addition, under the notice of intent, the government is committing to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the short and mid-term, 2020 to 2025, and also for the long term, up until 2050.

Mr. Chair, in view of the obvious weakness in comparison to Bill C-288, we cannot support clause 6 of Bill C-288 because it misses the mark clearly. It is clearly an inferior piece of proposed legislation when compared to Bill C-30, the Conservative government's bill. We would very much prefer to have this entire clause 6 deleted from the bill, in view of its obviously lesser ability to do the kinds of things that need to be done for the protection of the environment and the health of all Canadians. We would definitely see that in the government's Bill C-30, as opposed to what we have before us now.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try asking the question through you to Mr. Rodriguez again.

We are on clause 5. The title of clause 5 is “Climate Change Plan”, and there are a number of parts to clause 5. They have laid out their plan, and my question is again about this plan. What is the intent?

Now, we heard very clearly from him and the people...Mr. Ignatieff was quoted, who he was supporting. He very clearly said that they support a carbon tax, higher taxes for Canadians. It's a very clear, direct question. Is part of his climate change plan, part of Bill C-288, to increase the taxes of Canadians?

, he didn't answer that question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Godfrey answered for him and, in a vague way, shared with this committee.... It sounded as though, yes, it is part of their plan. He's trying to justify increased taxes for Canadians for a carbon tax or an environmental tax or whatever they want to call it. And I just want to make it very clear to Canadians that this is part of the Bill C-288 plan: to increase taxes substantially for Canadians.

Now, would he be willing to do a yes or no, or is he going to ask Mr. Godfrey to answer for him again?