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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we are straying off topic. I read the list of topics. We must not forget that there will be six sittings, which is a limited number. If you look at the government's proposals, you will see that the first one is target setting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent. I hope we will not spend an entire meeting discussing how the 6 per cent target was set. We could easily devote 10 sittings to that issue alone.

Then we have the following topics: actions to date and previous plans. In my opinion, we should first be dealing with the content of the bill itself. For example, is it feasible to require annual plans relating to the targets? Can we do this?

Moreover, the environment commissioner could tell us if this bill is a step in the right direction and if it can indeed be done. We could discuss how the 6 per cent target was set, we can even revisit previous plans, but what is most important is the full consideration of Bill C-288.

Can we submit plans to the House of Commons? What type of plan does Mr. Rodriguez's bill provide for? I think these are the basic elements that we should be tackling before we discuss what will happen in Nairobi and what will come after that.

Let's deal with the basics and the content. I am sure that the government has its own questions and is wondering if this bill can really fly. The government has every right to ask that question. Can annual plans be submitted? Some will say that they cannot, and the question is a perfectly legitimate one.

That is why the bill is before us today. Personally, I think it is possible and it can be done, but the government seems to think otherwise. As far as I am concerned, that is what we should be discussing, rather than spend the next six meetings wondering how the 6 per cent target was set. Because in the end, as they say, it is all academic.

Let's look at the content of the bill, which, to my mind, is much more constructive and is what we should really be doing.

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

We do not want to delay Bill C-288. What we are doing is deciding whether or not we want to add one sitting in order to continue the work on CEPA which we began in April. If we want to do a good job, then we must not lose our momentum or any of the information that we have already collected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, if I might interrupt, we do have a motion, which was passed, that we have to report back about Bill C-288 by December 7.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen made a suggestion that he was hoping the clerk would provide a schedule or a listing of upcoming business to make our responsibilities a little clearer. If he's suggesting that we defer, that would be an option we could consider and then deal with this at a future meeting.

But my first choice is that we make a decision today. I think based on priority, is a CEPA review important? It is to the government.

We've heard from the Bloc and the Liberals that Bill C-288 appears to be more important than CEPA. Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that Bill C-288 is taking a priority. As has been pointed out, we have until the end of February to deal with Bill C-288. So at the last meeting we suggested that we do Bill C-288 on a Tuesday and then on a Thursday do CEPA review, so we could be doing both in parallel. Mr. Chair, that was not supported. So what we are willing to do, if the Liberals and the Bloc want to push through Bill C-288, then—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I am in full agreement with Mr. Bigras.

I only have one thing to add. I would like to remind our government friends that since we set a date for Bill C-288, which should return to the House before December 7, we are wasting time quite uselessly here today.

Since you feel that Bill C-288 warrants our attention, I would encourage members to begin discussing the list of witnesses so that we may, as they have suggested, spend as much time as possible on Bill C-288.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Watson's arguments make no sense. He says that there is no guarantee that the government will not introduce new environmental legislation.

I do not want to make this political, but according to the Conservative Party's election platform, the only commitment that they made was to introduce a bill on air quality, which is Bill C-30.

In view of what Mr. Watson has just said, I have every intention of checking with my House leader to enquire about the government's agenda. I will ask my House leader if the government House leader has any other bills related to the environment.

If we follow that reasoning, then we should not even study Bill C-30 in committee, since there might be an election in May. So there would be very little time to move Bill C-30 along to report stage.

That makes no sense, Mr. Chairman. We have deadlines to meet, and the number of meetings that we have planned will allow us to deal with Bill C-288, amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and — I hope, for the government's sake — Bill C-30 as well.

With things as they now stand, we will not need to add any extra sittings.

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

I do not see why we need to add another sitting, at this time, since we have until May for CEPA, particularly since the government should be delighted that we will be dealing with the Clean Air Act and Bill C-30 as soon as a committee has been struck.

I think this fine balance will allow us to deal with Bill C-288 and respect our deadlines for the CEPA review, while allowing us to study Bill C-30, which is what the government would like us to do. To continue the discussion would be...

I do not know what the government is looking for, but it is clear that we have all of the time we need to do it and we can meet all of the regulatory deadlines.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harvey's question was quite relevant; it helped us to better understand how much time is available for each one of these bills or acts.

We have until December 7 to deal with Bill C-288. You said that there are seven sitting days left for us to hear from the witnesses and two or three meetings to draft the report. We have until May.

Are you saying that we have until next May to study CEPA?

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

And for Bill C-288?

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

What is the deadline for C-288? When should it be sent back to the House?

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

We should study Bill C-288, CEPA, and Bill C-30. Are there any issues that the committee should tackle in the short and medium term?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of things.

To your earlier point, the motion doesn't call for us to finish the review by Christmas; it's to continue the review with an additional meeting per week, so the review may actually take us beyond the Christmas timeline. What we're suggesting is that we continue with the review with an additional....

It's not only that. The experience of this committee in the last Parliament was that we were many, many weeks into a study of Kyoto and then the government dropped the plan in the middle of it. We continued on with our review of the Kyoto Protocol. We of course brought in aspects of what was happening with the government's climate change plan. That came in. It informed the work we did as a committee. We had no problem with doing that at the time, and we still produced a report--one that we're going to be bringing back, interestingly enough, in the discussion on Bill C-288--so I don't think that parties agreeing to put a special legislative committee to discuss the Clean Air Act can't somehow inform what we're doing.

It is a mandatory requirement that we do a review. Whether or not the result is binding on the government, it's mandatory that we actually do the review, so I think it's important that we continue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a small point.

On Bill C-288, when is the legislative requirement for it to be back?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I will add a clarification to what Mr. Cullen has said. The motion says that we'd have one additional meeting per week until the Christmas break; at that point we will be done with Bill C-288, so we could then go back to the CEPA review at full speed. It keeps momentum. It keeps us updated on the issues.

There have been accusations that some do not support CEPA or even a CEPA review. I don't believe that. I believe there is a true desire to support CEPA. It's a good piece of legislation. What we've seen, basically, is Bill C-288 take over from CEPA. CEPA has been put aside. I want to give the committee an opportunity to show in good faith that it is still a priority; it is to us, and hopefully it is to everybody on this committee.

Yes, these are busy times. At the last Parliament I sat on three different committees. I sat on a Bill C-38 special legislative committee; we were meeting for many hours almost every day because it was a priority. Is CEPA a priority? Absolutely.

Basically we have an opportunity to show whether or not it is indeed a priority. I will be supporting this because it is a priority. I'm willing to work as hard and as long as necessary, and to go to as many meetings as necessary, to do the CEPA review.

I will respect the wishes of the majority to deal with Bill C-288, but, Mr. Chair, we have to continue on with the CEPA review. Morally, it's the right thing to do. Whatever is required, I'm willing to go to as many meetings as necessary for as long as necessary to do it. That's the spirit of this motion, and hopefully the majority of the committee members will agree that CEPA is indeed a priority to this committee.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to suggest anything cynical, but let me just suggest a scenario. I would be interested to find out what the opposition think of something like this. In order to keep the CEPA review going, if we were to alternate days with Bill C-288, and push back the timeline, I submit there would probably be some howling from the other side.

Quite frankly, I think they're dressing up an argument on this one. I think we should go for an additional meeting. There is no guarantee that someone like me is going to end up on the Clean Air Act. I would like to keep going with the CEPA review, so we don't lose momentum and it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I think it is a priority.

I think we've been accommodating with respect to the need to get on with Bill C-288 and some of those things. I suggest that it would be good faith from the opposition to accede to this additional requirement. Let's get on with the CEPA review.