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.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a point of order based on the ruling that was made at the last committee meeting to entertain this motion by Mr. Rodriguez today. Clearly, Mr. Chair, the protocol and procedures established by this committee more than suggested--confirmed--the fact that there is a series of protocols that must be followed to entertain, in this case Bill C-288.

This committee has determined, first of all, that motions should be given advance notice of 24 hours, although there is an exception to that, I understand. If the motion being presented could be considered business under review or current business, it could be entertained. But quite clearly, the protocol of this committee also suggests that motions must be given in writing in both official languages. This was not done.

Mr. Chair, if I may continue, I think it's quite clear that the protocol as established by this committee was not followed. From time to time rulings are made in committees that are in error, and I suggest this one was done in all good faith. There was quite a bit of confusion at the end of the meeting in which this motion was entertained. Another committee was trying to get into the room, and this committee was just trying to complete its business. But all that being said, Mr. Chair, the end result was that a ruling was made to entertain Mr. Rodriguez's motion to start discussions on Bill C-288 when in fact his motion is, in my opinion, out of order because he did not follow proper protocol.

Mr. Chair, one may argue that protocol isn't that important to follow. I would suggest that in this Parliament, in this place, protocol is extremely important to follow. There is a reason, Mr. Chair, that under Westminster parliamentary procedures we have procedures and rules that all parliamentarians are bound to follow. The bible on procedures and practices, Marleau and Montpetit, is an extremely lengthy document, as everyone here knows.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Good morning, everyone.

Before we start the meeting today, there are a few procedural things I'd like to suggest to members, if they are in agreement.

First of all, this meeting room was supposed to be televised. There's no need for us to televise this meeting, because it's mainly to deal with procedure. If members are okay with it, we'll have the cameras turned off.

Are members in agreement with that? I don't see any objections.

The second thing is that our meeting will terminate at 11 o'clock, given the fact that there's another committee meeting here. I wanted members to be aware of that. I do think we can manage to do things within an hour, at least I'm hoping to, since the only topic at hand is Bill C-288, and there are no witnesses before the committee.

As well, if the members are in agreement, I'd like to have ten minutes given to each individual, so that we don't go over the allotted time of two hours.

If members are in agreement with that, we'll proceed in that fashion. If there are any other questions, concerns, or motions, I'd like to entertain them. Otherwise, who would like to be the first to speak?

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

Mr. Chairman. I move that we begin consideration of Bill C-288 next week, perhaps not Tuesday, but Thursday at the latest. I would like this motion to be put to a vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since the House has already ruled on Bill C-288 and referred it to the committee, it would be important, I believe, to suspend our consideration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Mr. Rodriguez has suggested starting next week, but we do not have to delve into it on Tuesday. I do, however, think that to respect the decision of parliamentarians in this House who want the bill to be considered by this committee, we should get to it as soon as possible.

I am convinced that if it were a government bill, we would already be considering it. I believe that Mr. Rodriguez's bill warrants our full attention. We must, as a committee, be diligent in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's unanimous, so we will try to set a date to look at the main estimates.

As you can understand, of course, we have witnesses scheduled for all of next week--they've all been arranged--but we'll look at some time in the couple of weeks after that.

The next item we need to deal with would be Bill C-288. What I would like to just mention to the committee is that the previous environment committee did a full report based around--and I know many of you weren't here--greenhouse gases, emission levels, the Kyoto Protocol, and so on. The committee did spend, literally, half a year on this. So that will fit in.

The second thing I would like to draw to the committee's attention is that the clean air act is going to be tabled this week, and obviously it will also fit into the discussion of this. So I think that should be under consideration as we look at this.

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Perhaps a little cold water for Mr. Rodriguez.

I'm going back to the transcripts from the committee with Madam Gélinas. My colleague to the right of me, Mr. Vellacott, made a very simple statement, and I'm going to quote it: “...whether the government changed, the new targets are needed.”

Madam Gélinas' reply was: "That's absolutely right.” It wasn't “kind of right”, “maybe”, or “no”; it was, “That's absolutely right.” Even had the previous government won the last election and continued to govern, Madam Gélinas makes it absolutely clear that new targets are needed.

Mr. Rodriguez brought forward a bill, Bill C-288. Unfortunately, it was passed, and it's going to shackle us to the failed approach of Kyoto with respect to the timeframe and target.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-288 under private members' business.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. government House leader on June 16, 2006 in relation to the procedural issues relating to Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. government House leader for having raised this matter and by thanking the hon. members for Mississauga South, Honoré-Mercier and Winnipeg Centre for having made contributions on this matter.

In his submission, the government House leader argued that this bill commits the government to significant expenditures and therefore requires a royal recommendation. In support of this fact, he referred to the spending which was included in the supplementary estimates for the 2005-06 fiscal year by the previous government. Parliament was dissolved in November 2005 before the appropriation act emanating from those estimates could be voted on, and subsequently the moneys were authorized through Governor General special warrants. The House leader therefore concludes that it is evident that this bill entails considerable spending and so requires a royal recommendation.

In a ruling earlier this week on a similar matter, namely, C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, the Chair made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us, the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be. If spending is required, as the government House leader contends, then a specific request for public monies would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill, as was the case in 2005, or through another legislative initiative containing an authorization for the spending of public money for a specific purpose.

As it stands, Bill C-288 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize any spending for a distinct purpose relating to the Kyoto protocol. Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

As Bill C-288 stands, however, the Chair must conclude that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and may proceed.

Bill C-288--Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this point of order relates to my private member's bill.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to respond to points raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning my private member's bill, Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

On June 16, the Leader of the Government rose on a point of order concerning my bill, saying that it would require royal recommendation. He said:

I find it difficult to see how this bill can mandate the government to fully meet existing Kyoto targets without also committing the government to additional significant expenditures in the billions of dollars.

I would like to begin by reminding the hon. member about the contents of my bill. It would require the Minister of the Environment to prepare a yearly climate change plan that describes measures to be undertaken to ensure that Canada respects its obligations under paragraph 3(1) of the Kyoto protocol.

The bill would also require that the government make, amend or repeal the appropriate regulations, in order to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. It also calls on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit an evaluation of the government’s annual plans.

The bill also allows the government, in making, amending or repealing regulations, to “take into account any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are reasonably expected to result from the implementation of other governmental measures, including spending and federal-provincial agreements”.

Thus, while Bill C-288allows the government to spend in order to meet the Canadian objectives in the Kyoto protocol, it does not require that it do so at all. In fact, it is the government’s option. The government alone would decide whether to spend in addition to making regulations. It is therefore up to the government to decide.

I would like to address the question of how Canada would meet its Kyoto objectives without government spending.

To start with, I would assure the House that it is perfectly possible that Canada will meet its Kyoto obligations by the regulatory route alone.

For example, consider the broadest practical domestic emissions trading system described in the 2002 Government of Canada discussion paper on Canada's contribution to addressing climate change. The system would require all fossil fuel suppliers to hold permits equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by burning the fossil fuels that they sell. Such a system would cover most emissions from industry, electricity generation, buildings and transportation.

In total, the report estimates that this regulated emissions trading system would cover in the order of 80% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. Using this approach, the government could adopt regulations to obtain any desired amount of reductions from sources, making up 80% of Canada's emissions. Most or all of the remaining 20% of national emissions which come mainly from agriculture landfills and some industrial processes could also be reduced by granting offset credits that would be bought and sold by the private sectors.

Regulations to increase the energy efficiency of vehicles, equipment, appliances and other consumer products will round out the approach. Thus, Canada could certainly meet its Kyoto target through regulations alone.

The six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto protocol are already listed in Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which gives the government broad powers to regulate them.

CEPA also allows for a domestic emissions trading system under section 11.

In other words, the government already has everything it needs to regulate greenhouse gas pollution right now. Its powers are more than sufficient for Canada to be able to meet its Kyoto obligations without spending any new public funds.

The report I have just quoted sets out the results of economic modelling of the approach I described. According to that economic model, meeting our Kyoto objectives by relying essentially on an extended emissions rights trading system would mean that we could increase our GDP by more than if we just maintained the status quo. By achieving our Kyoto objectives in that way, we would create jobs and increase both real disposable personal income and real investment. We must therefore stop seeing the Kyoto protocol as a threat, and instead look at it as a business opportunity.

Despite these advantages, my bill would not require the government to take that approach. The government could choose, for a variety of reasons, to combine regulations and spending. The provisions of my bill leave the decision entirely up to the government.

Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in December 2002 after receiving support from the majority of members of Parliament. That support was affirmed in May when a motion in the House calling on the government to meet its Kyoto targets won overwhelming support from members of Parliament.

In spite of the failure of the present government to provide any leadership on emissions reduction, Canada is still a party to the Kyoto protocol. We are bound by it. Under international law, we are still required to meet our national objective.

As well, in the 2006 budget, the House also approved $2 billion in appropriations for measures relating to climate change. So even though my bill does not call for any spending by the government, there are substantial funds available to combat climate change.

To sum up, the Kyoto objective that Canada has agreed to meet still applies, and Canada has an obligation to the entire world to meet that commitment. I will say it again: Canada has the resources and the powers that it needs to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol simply by taking the regulatory route.

Consequently, my bill does not call for any recommendation to authorize new spending. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that when you consider this information you will come to the same conclusion.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

moved that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Speaker, as you said, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that Canada meets its climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

This bill creates an obligation on the minister to establish annually a climate change plan and make regulations. It also creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations and submit a report to Parliament.

I hope that my colleagues from all parties will support this bill, which is vital to our future and to that of our children.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)