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]

I want to follow up on the question from Mr. Vellacott. It's relevant that we're back to the main motion, which is dealing with clause 5.

The committee needs very clear clarification of the intent of this bill. Throughout the Liberal leadership race, a number of things were said, and Mr. Rodriguez at that time was supporting Mr. Ignatieff. He said taxes would have to increase dramatically. He said taxes would rise to protect the environment, and Mr. Vellacott was asking about the carbon tax position.

We are now dealing with Bill C-288, and the question is relevant. Is it going to include increased taxation to Canadians? That was the position of Mr. Rodriguez when he was supporting Mr. Ignatieff. Is that the same position of Mr. Dion, the new leader? We need to know where Bill C-288 is going to take Canadians.

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

Yes, and a friendly amendment to look at workers. If that's more poignant and more directed at the people affected, then that's fine with us.

The only thing I would suggest is that we're not comparing the oil and gas sector to the textile industry, but keeping in mind that under Bill C-288 it's certainly more than just the oil and gas sector that's affected. I'm thinking of certain mining operations or anyone who produces any greenhouse gases.

So if it's workers, and if that's acceptable to Monsieur Bigras or others, we'd be willing to accept that amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We find ourselves at the issue of what it would mean for Canada to meet the Kyoto target. Earlier, during the testimony of the witnesses, Mr. Jayson Myers stated the two opinions on how legislators can meet the Kyoto target: either reduce the economic output by 30%--roughly $300 billion in lost productivity--or purchase an equivalent amount of reduction internationally, at a cost of $5 billion a year for the period 2008 to 2012.

I quote Mr. Myers: “You would have to have widespread replacement of energy sources, widespread improvement in vehicles currently on the road, and widespread replacement of industrial machinery. It's not going to happen in five years.”

Our strong opposition to Bill C-288 rests on its link to the short-term reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol based on the negative impact this would have on the Canadian economy and on the environmental process. Our government's proposed legislation is simply a much better approach to Canada's making its contribution to addressing climate change in the short, medium, and long terms. 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 have failed--by the Liberals--in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and that their objectives are achieved.

Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I will not be supporting this. I think the appropriate way to handle this would be to delete this entire clause, but I don't believe we can do that, so I will be voting against clause 3.

I do have a question for Mr. Rodriguez, through the chair. His new leader, Mr. Dion, has said that Canada is unable to meet its Kyoto targets. In fact, he said, “I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it. Everyone is saying target, target.”

From this quote, my guess is that Bill C-288 has put you offside with your party leader. What is the Liberal position on meeting the original Kyoto target under the new leadership of Mr. Dion?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is going to be whether the author of the bill, Mr. Rodriguez, is still intending to proceed to clause-by-clause. That will be fine, but it will be quite surprising to me in light of the testimony that we've received. Even as recently as the beginning of this week, on Tuesday, we heard damning witness testimony against Bill C-288. And to look at the expressions on the face of the Liberal members, I assumed they would have been removing this bill as being irrelevant and not achievable.

So just for clarification, is it the intent of Mr. Rodriguez to proceed to clause-by-clause?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, in light of the witnesses' testimony, I think if you went by percentage, 95% to 99% of the witnesses said that what this bill, Bill C-288, is attempting to achieve is not achievable. We have heard comments to the effect that this would have been relevant in 1998 but is not now. The last witness we heard from in the group of witnesses concerning—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Could we get started, please.

Just for the record, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol is the item for debate today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 will be postponed to the end of the proceedings, and we will begin with clause 2.

Does everyone have copies of the amendments that have been proposed? I think the clerk has handed those out, and everyone should have copies.

So we're all set? Yes.

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

One of our Liberal committee members, Mr. John Godfrey, has spoken about having to recalibrate--I guess that maybe means something different from Bill C-288--the Kyoto targets. Would you say the need for a major recalibration is a fair comment?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

The reason I just corrected myself is that it depends on how you interpret Bill C-288. If Bill C-288 legally binds government to Kyoto compliance, the Liberal plan doesn't get you there. Again, you're not there. If it's a best efforts deal, it's irrelevant. If it binds government, the Liberal plan doesn't work either.

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

Right. And with Bill C-288, do you see any significant difference between the previous Liberal plan and Bill C-288?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Bill C-288 doesn't add or subtract anything.

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

Am I correct in saying you don't see a significant difference, then, between Bill C-288 and the previous Liberal plan? I mean, it's an extension, an emphasis.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

There is, absolutely. If you're in industry and you're trying to figure out where government thinks it wants to go--which is quite an exercise--what you would be doing today is comparing the July 2005 Liberal notice to regulate to the Conservative notice to regulate. You're probably not paying any attention whatsoever to either Bill C-288 or Bill C-30.

I'm an exception to the rule. For ten years, every time we've done a project, I have been compiling a recommended package of government regulations and measures.

It happens that the package I would be a proponent of right now needs Bill C-288 to be passed...I'm sorry, I mean that it needs Bill C-30 to be passed. Bill C-288 is irrelevant, except that every time government debates Kyoto, government is not sitting down and saying what our target is going to be. So if you're seeing a continuation of the Kyoto debate, as opposed to moving on to what we are going to do, industry takes that as a delay.

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

My next question, then, I'll direct to Ms. Donnelly.

In your perspective, is there any difference between Bill C-288 and the previous Liberal plan? Could you give me some summary?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Harvey.

Just to provide clarity, Bill C-288 is a private member's bill from Mr. Rodriguez, supported by his party, the Liberal Party, which was the former government for the last 13 years, when they had an opportunity to do something on the environment. The title of Bill C-288 is An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. As we go into the bill, what is that Kyoto Protocol? It's again clarified: “the Kyoto Protocol requires that Canada reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions during the period 2008-2012 to 6% below their level in 1990”.

We now know we're at 35% above that target. As part of the Kyoto Protocol, the previous government was supposed to report annually. The report that was due January 1, 2006, showed that Canada was on target to hit 47% above, and that it would cost billions of dollars to try to meet those targets. Clearly we were not able to meet those targets. Yet we have Bill C-288 suggesting that we continue to try to meet those targets when the previous government did not.

We now have a new government. We have a report from the environment commissioner, and I appreciate her being here today. She was here earlier when she introduced this report.

I really do appreciate, Commissioner, your challenge to this government and all members of Parliament to work together. That was my last question of you: do you believe we should be working together, particularly in a minority Parliament, because of the issue of the environment? And you did encourage us to work together.

In your report, you said:

At a government-wide level, our audits revealed inadequate leadership, planning, and performance. To date, the approach has lacked foresight and direction and has created confusion and uncertainty for those trying to deal with it. Many of the weaknesses identified in our audits are of the government's own making. It has not been effective in leading and deciding on many of the key areas under its control. Change is needed.

Mr. Chair, the government has made very clear to this Parliament that it was working very hard on a change--a change that would address climate change, a change in government focus that would address pollution levels--and thus we have Bill C-30, the proposed Canada's Clean Air Act. There were five hours of debate yesterday, and it will be debated and dealt with in the legislative committee. But at this committee now we are in the last meeting dealing with Bill C-288. So we have two opposing agendas. We have the government dealing with the environment, getting on with it and providing leadership. On the other hand, we have an opposition member providing a bill that would contradict what the government wants to do.

The question I've asked every witness to this point at the committee is this: do we believe we can meet these targets? Are they random targets, arbitrarily set, or are they scientifically set? Can we meet those targets in Canada? To this point, all but one witness has said no, we cannot domestically meet those targets. The only way we can meet those targets is to send billions of dollars out of Canada.

This government supports keeping that money here, developing technologies right here in Canada in order to be world leaders. That's my position and that's the position of the government, that we need to be clear leaders internationally.

Mr. Chair, I can see right now that I'm going to use my full ten minutes, so my apologies to Mr. Harvey.

We had a quote from Professor Villeneuve from the University of Quebec. He said: “In closing, I'd like to comment on the bill. This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998”—indicating that it was not a relevant bill. If the government had acted on the bill when it had a chance, then we may have had a completely different situation from what we're dealing with right now.

Professor Mark Jaccard somewhat agreed, but somewhat disagreed. He said, “When someone said, 'This is a good bill for 1999', I would say, 'No, it still doesn't give you enough timeframe.'”

We have professionals, scientists, saying yes, we all agree that we need to come up with a plan, but what's the best plan? Is Bill C-288 the good plan? It's not based on science; it's based on politics.

Bill C-30 deals with timeframes; it moves from voluntary to mandatory. It provides clear leadership in dealing with the issues of greenhouse gases. This is what I would encourage members to support, and not support Bill C-288. But that is my personal opinion.

My question to the witnesses, and the commissioner, would be deemed a political question, so I'm not going to ask it of you. I'm going to ask this of the witnesses--Ms. Donnelly, Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Hyndman, and the witness from Greenpeace. Do you believe we can meet the Kyoto targets, as recommended or required in Bill C-288, disregarding comments from Mr. Godfrey, who said that we must not be absolutely obsessed with the Kyoto target when we are dealing with Bill C-288.

Bill C-288 requires us to meet those targets. Do you believe we can meet those targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1999 levels? Can we do it domestically? Is it a realistic target?

[Steven Guilbeault]

Yes, I would. I think one important thing in life is to recognize one's own limitations. So on more specific questions regarding, for example, emissions trading, I would gladly pass the microphone--and I think it's been agreed upon--to my colleague Matthew Bramley from the Pembina Institute.

Obviously, Canada went into Kyoto not as well prepared as a number of other countries were. For example, when they walked into the meeting halls of Kyoto in 1997, the European Union already knew pretty much how the allocation system was going to happen amongst the member states. Everything was not finalized. For example, at the time, the attitude of the European Union was that they would probably not use emissions trading. They ended up changing their minds on this.

The fact that we were not as prepared as we should have been doesn't mean we should abandon—I think it's really easy for some in Canada to say that the Kyoto Protocol targets are unachievable, when we haven't even tried. In 2005 we had a plan that was put on the table. In her report, Madame Gélinas said there were some strengths and some weaknesses. I've heard a number of ministers and representatives from the government say that Madame Gélinas said in her report that the Kyoto Protocol was unachievable. I fail to read that in her report, but maybe she would like to clarify that.

Then, for the government to come in and abolish a number of the programs that would have enabled us, if not to achieve our Kyoto targets, certainly to come closer to them, I don't think it is the right attitude. We need to try. We have an international commitment, a legally binding commitment, I should point out, to achieve our Kyoto targets. Bill C-288 is what we need to get on with the program.