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.

Bill C-377 looks quite familiar. It looks like a continuation of Bill C-288. In fact, some of the same phrases were used in Bill C-377 as we saw in Bill C-288.

Who drafted Bill C-377, because both bills are so similar? Did a common author draft these bills?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Layton, for being here. It's good to see you again, Jack.

When I first spoke to this bill in the House, I said I thought the member putting it forward was beyond reproach in terms of sincerity about the issue, so thank you for your efforts here.

I want to put a practical question to you. Are you not somewhat discouraged, given the conduct of the government in the wake of the adoption of Bill C-288 as binding law in Canada and the fact that the government has now missed two deadlines and is being pursued in the Federal Court by two NGOs to try to compel the government to do what the government is obliged to do? Aren't you a little discouraged that even if this bill were to see the light of day, the government would simply ignore it?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Well, we would be open to that proposition. We supported Bill C-288, as you know, worked on it, and also Bill C-30. I think this suite, if you will, of pieces of legislation should be able to fit together in a way that accomplishes the goal. I think it's quite likely that coming out of Bali and those negotiations an end point of 2020 would not be a surprise, so we put a fix on that one with our 25% reduction there.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Welcome, Mr. Layton. It's good to see you here.

Depending on how this goes, I may be sharing my time with one of my colleagues, Mr. Regan.

I would like to ask a couple of questions. To some extent, there is a relationship between a private member's bill we passed last year, Bill C-288, which referred to the monitoring of the Kyoto Protocol, and the kinds of monitoring devices that are contemplated here.

What's curious about your bill is a couple of things. First of all, it kicks into action in 2015. As we all know from watching the proceedings in Bali, the first Kyoto commitment period ends in 2012. What isn't particularly evident from the bill is how it builds on Kyoto. Why wouldn't you envisage, as people in Bali are now doing, that it would pick up in 2012 rather than 2015.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

You talked about push-back from public servants with respect to decisions by the former Liberal government to sign Kyoto. One could say that there has probably been push-back from public servants at Environment Canada to some of your statements or predictions. For example, in the National Post on August 22, Mike De Souza talked about a four-page briefing note to the minister that said nothing to support the minister's warnings that Bill C-288 could lead to massive job losses, rising energy prices, a recession, and so and so forth. That is just one example.

I am wondering what your officials tell you when all kinds of third parties, such as the Pembina Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Energy Board, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and UNDP, come out with statements like the C.D. Howe did, which is that government is likely to miss its 2020 emissions target by almost 200 megatonnes, or when the Deutsche Bank says that the Canadian government has materially overstated the costs of Canada's compliance with Kyoto, etc. There must be a push-back inside the department then, isn't there?

[Ron Thompson]

Mr. Chairman and Mr. McGuinty, I have a couple of comments on that.

Bill C-288 requires that the commissioner's office, our office, do an audit--if I can put it that way--in May of 2009 of the take-up of the plan. We are making arrangements now to do that. We are in the early stages, but we will certainly be doing that and getting ready to do it early on.

As you probably know, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy had a look at the plan that was put forward on, I think, August 23. They issued a very interesting report on that plan--which the committee may want to have a look at--that offered some challenges, frankly, regarding the numbers that were associated with certain targets in the government's plan.

Hopefully, over the next two years those challenges will be met by the people who prepared the plan so that by the time we come around to auditing that in two years, we'll have something a little more solid to look at.

But we certainly are looking at Bill C-288. We're involved in it. I met with the national round table a couple of times to talk about their work, and we're going over to see Environment Canada to talk about the round table's report, probably before Christmas, to get a sense of what is going to change before we get into the audit game.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's interesting how, from a machinery of government perspective, the default drive from your colleague officials in PCO and PMO and elsewhere is again to punt this issue to the least-funded line department in the federal government, Environment Canada.

I want to switch gears for a second to another issue, which I'm hoping will be part of your February report. That is the question of former Bill C-288, now the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act for this country, a binding law on the government.

Will your office be reviewing the government's breach--or breaches, potentially--under that law, which is now of course being enforced in Federal Court by a number of environmental groups? Will you be reporting to Canadians very clearly on the extent to which this government has in fact broken its own laws?

Opposition Motion--The Economy

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, we have because you just do not understand how it works. You look at a straight line rate. I know that is simple, but it is just not that simple, as the member knows.

In any event, we have increased investment right across the board. It is sad that the hon. member thinks that increasing transfer payments to places like Nova Scotia is not fiscally conservative because we also reduced taxes broadly. We reduced the corporate surtax. We reduced the landing fee for immigrants coming to Canada.

These are all tax reductions that the former government did not have the courage to do. In Advantage Canada we signalled going to the lowest corporate taxes in the G-7. That is good for Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member specifically about Bill C-288. The Liberal Party thinks it is the champion of the economy. Unfortunately, Bill C-288 would drive this country into the deepest recession that it has probably ever seen. You supported that and that is too bad, Scott.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech and, quite honestly, I am somewhat dismayed by the hypocrisy that continues to flow from the Liberal benches when we talk about the environment and when we talk about the damaging effects of climate change.

This government has signaled quite clearly that it is moving to clean up Canada's act, to get the job done and to reverse the trend that occurred while that member was a member of the previous government and, in fact, a cabinet minister in the previous government. If he was so passionate about this issue, I would hesitate to guess that this country would be a long way ahead of where it is right now.

This government has stated clearly that it will clean up Canada's environmental act. We are moving forward with very aggressive targets, targets that have been saluted by the G-8, by APEC, the United Nations and others, to name a few.

We are moving in a positive direction. What I would like to know is when the Liberal Party will stop playing games on the environment and work with this government to get results.

We have been saying for a long time that we cannot deal with the environment in isolation. I am encouraged by one thing, which is that he actually spoke about the three Es because the Liberal Party has certainly not been speaking to that. Certainly Bill C-288 indicated that the Liberal Party has no concern whatsoever for either energy or the economy when it talks about the environment.

I am encouraged by that but I encourage the member to stop his partisan rhetoric and start working with this government to get real results on the environment, something his government never did.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts--Chapter 15;

Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs)--Chapter 16;

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act--Chapter 17;

Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and to make related amendments to other Acts--Chapter 18;

Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 19;

Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)--Chapter 20;

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act--Chapter 21;

Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification--Chapter 22;

Bill C-60, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2008--Chapter 23;

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)--Chapter 24;

Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 25;

Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 26;

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act--Chapter 27;

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)--Chapter 28;

Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007--Chapter 29;

Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol--Chapter 30.

It being 12:23 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2007, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

The first session of the 39th Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on September 14, 2007.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills:

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption).

Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act.

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie).

Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007.

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

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Drexhage, for your comments.

There are a couple of areas I'd like to question on, carrying on the carbon price issue. You indicated the carbon price had to be high enough and broad enough in the future. Dr. Jaccard's comments on Bill C-288 were about the extremely high GHG tax and what the impact of that would be in the short term. So what I'm wondering is, from your perspective, what does “high enough” mean? It doesn't seem reasonable to do it between now and 2012, as Mr. Jaccard has said, without bringing the economy down. What is the right “high enough” from 2012 and beyond?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It was interesting that Mr. McGuinty said in the House on April 20 that the report on Bill C-288 was full of misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, ridiculous assumptions, and glaring omissions.

The leader of the Bloc said on April 23 that the basic premise behind the report on the cost of Bill C-288 was biased. The leader of the NDP called your analysis of Bill C-288 bogus, irresponsible, and incomplete. That was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen , and it said that it deliberately deceives the Canadian people about the impact of Kyoto obligations.

I just bring that to your attention. There has been a lot of rhetoric recently, and I appreciate your encouragement that we move forward. If we're all pulling in different directions, it makes it difficult to move forward on the environment. Canada's new government is committed to moving forward.

I appreciate your work on the National Round Table on the Environment and your comments today. Thank you so much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, it was quite unfortunate. There was a non-confidence motion from the Liberals on the chair, which was very disappointing.

I want to bring this to your attention, just to make sure we're quoting this right. On April 13 of this year you wrote a letter to Minister Baird based on your analysis of Bill C-288, the Liberal Kyoto plan, and you wrote: “The general conclusion of this…document is that Canadian compliance with its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol is likely to trigger a major economic recession. From what I understand of our legal options for compliance with Kyoto and my knowledge of the energy-economy system, I concur with this conclusion.” You also wrote that in order to meet the targets contained in Bill C-288 an extremely high greenhouse tax or regulated greenhouse cap would be required and this would shock the economy. You also wrote: “The modelling method of estimating the cost of Kyoto compliance appears sound to me.”

Is that correct? Am I quoting that correctly?

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great interest I noted that the leader of the fourth party suggested that we take advice from that individual. He is the same academic who reviewed the opposition Bill C-288 and said it would have terrible economic consequences for Canada.

If the hon. member is going to accept all the advice from Mark Jaccard, maybe he should begin by accepting the advice of the foolhardy Bill C-288, something that he and his party have hung their own hats on.