Bill C-377 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that
Canada meets its global climate change obligations
under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change by committing to a long-term
target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions
to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by
the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the
period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on
the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development to review proposed measures to meet the
targets and submit a report to Parliament.
It also sets out the duties of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm looking at page 948 of my Marleau and Montpetit. And the point of order I'm going to be making is a true point of order, not an interruption as we saw just previously. The record will show that I was on topic, and the NDP tried to keep the truth from coming out.

Page 948 addresses the point that “All persons or bodies affected by a private bill should be heard and the need for the bill demonstrated”. This is exactly what I was speaking about. It says that “Since a private bill makes certain assertions which are put forth in support of the request for legislation, they should be proven before” court “agrees to enact the legislation being sought”. It also says that “The legislative function of Parliament demands that each measure be given due deliberation and orderly consideration”. I'm sure that didn't happen. The paragraph ends with, “The judicial-like proceedings surrounding private bill practice demands, in addition, that those concerned be heard, or at the very least be given the opportunity to be heard.” And that just did not happen.

I'll quote further from Marleau and Montpetit:

The decision of the House to give second reading to a private bill does not mean that the House has approved the principle of the bill as is the case for a public bill. Rather, the House has given the bill a second reading conditional upon a committee's finding that the assertions contained in the petition and repeated in the bill's preamble have been proven.

Now, we haven't heard that. It has not been proven. Again, we heard time and time again that Bill C-377 is a hollow, empty, hypocritical, phony bill.

The quote continues:

While a preamble is optional in a public bill, it is essential in all private bills. The procedure thus requires that a private bill be sent to committee so that opponents of the bill may be heard.

We have a number of members over there who just cut off people being heard and who did not listen to that, so I'll repeat this:

The procedure thus requires that a private bill be sent to committee so that opponents of the bill may be heard.

Well, that just ended a moment ago, Chair.

The quote continues:

Another reason why it is sent to committee is so that Parliament can satisfy itself that the matters raised in the preamble of the bill are true and that the provisions of the bill are a proper response to those assertions. The bill as reported from the committee, with or without amendments, may be said to be the committee's decision on a petitioner's request.

What we have seen on pages 948 and 949, Chair, is the importance--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm attempting to speak specifically to this motion and not go off topic. I'm sharing how important it is that we have a commitment to the petitioner of this bill, the NDP, that we are committed to a conclusion that will be good for the environment globally and for the environment in Canada. His motion is taking us down a pathway to nowhere by continuing to use Bill C-377 with no impact analysis. The NDP's plan is to continue with Bill C-377 as we see it being presented to this point. If it does not have what the witnesses say needs to be part of it, then whether we go through clause-by-clause and end today or end after a 30-day extension, the result will be the same: we will have a bill that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will not have the positive effect Canadians want.

I've made comments before about how important it is that our commitments, projects, products, and bills really address the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We've heard that Bill C-377 won't do that. So I'm encouraging the NDP, represented by Mr. Cullen, to provide clarity to this committee that Bill C-377 is a good bill.

We've heard from witnesses that it's not a good bill; it's missing what it needs to have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in the end. It's so vague that it's meaningless. That was in my beginning comments, when I shared what the commissioner shared. The commissioner said in a report to Parliament how important it was to have those parts of a bill. She said we need to conduct the economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses. Without that it will not be successful.

Just by the House of Commons passing Bill C-377 and moving to the House and then on to the Senate does not mean it will be successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether we have this extension or not--again speaking to the motion. What is critical for the success of Parliament and the environment is that Bill C-377 is dramatically improved so that during the extension period--if that's the will of the committee--we end up with a product that will do something.

At this point, our Turning the Corner plan gives that direction to Parliament. It includes the economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses the commissioner is recommending. So at the end of the day you already have in place the Turning the Corner plan that goes through the process of becoming a regulation. It's good and has what the commissioner is recommending; Bill C-377 doesn't.

So the extension that's being asked for by the NDP will not give us the end result. We heard very clearly from the witnesses that even with this extension, it will not give the results that Parliament wants and that the international community wants.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I find it interesting that we had dealt with this motion. I spoke in good faith and presented this motion a few meetings ago, sharing with this committee that we needed more time. We heard from every witness group that we needed to have an impact analysis on this. I asked every group, and every group said, yes, we needed to have it.

Just thinking back to when Mr. Layton came...and I paraphrased him, I didn't give an exact quote, but if Mr. Cullen would like me to provide an exact quote, I will, because I have that in my package here.

At any rate, I was quite shocked when Mr. Layton said that Bill C-377 was presented to this committee as a dream but with no substance. It was a dream. He used the analogy of the railway, that they didn't know how they were going to build it but somehow, hopefully, they'd have it. He had no idea about the costing of this, about the impact analysis that we heard every witness group recommend.

What I did, Mr. Chair, was to recommend that we extend this. The committee said, no, they were quite sure they could ram Bill C-377 through with bare bones.

We heard that the federal government would receive these unlimited, unprecedented powers over all the provinces, and I was quite shocked to see that the Bloc supported that. We as a government respect provincial jurisdiction; no, they wanted to force Bill C-377 through as quickly as possible, without further consultation, when we were advised by these witnesses that there should be an impact analysis.

What I have to share in speaking to this motion will hopefully be quite thorough and will provide some direction to the committee in terms of where I'm coming from. I'm speaking to this motion to extend in frustration that this was not dealt with properly in the first place.

Mr. Chair, I was doing some research earlier today. I have a quote here from the Commissioner of the Environment, Madame Gélinas, referring to the Kyoto targets on climate change:

We expected that the federal government

—referring to the then Liberal government—

would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998...

Then she went on to say:

...we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses.

We all know what happened to the previous government's commitment to Kyoto. They signed on to 6% below 1990 levels. Did we achieve that as a country? No, we did not.

I believe the commissioner gave us some really clear direction on what we need to do as the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We need to provide that analysis; otherwise, we're doomed to repeat the same mistake made by the previous Liberal government. You have these lofty ideas...and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that the motives were right, but without a plan, without knowing what it's going to cost, without a policy attached, whether it's done in a very short period of time or a long period of time, you will not be successful.

I take the issue of climate change and I take the issue of a warming climate very seriously, as I know the minister and the Prime Minister do. We have to present research. A costing, an impact analysis, has to be part of the equation.

By extending this for another few weeks, with no commitment from the NDP to provide the proper economic, social, and environmental risk analyses of Bill C-377, I'm concerned that we're going down the path to nowhere—with “nowhere” referring to where we will be at the end of the day.

We already have a very good plan, the Turning the Corner plan, from the government, which I'll share and elaborate on in a minute. Again, I just want to share with the committee how important it is that if we do extend it, that it be done with a plan, a commitment, that we are going to make sure that we have this analysis done that we heard about from every group.

Without it, as I said earlier, we're doomed to failure, as we saw with the Liberal Party. Their commitment was to 6% below 1990 levels, and we ended up being 33% above that target—not even close to the target. We see the same thing with Bill C-377. We have no bones; we have no policy, no costing, no impact. They want to move forward with an extension of a few weeks, but they do not want to consider the facts. They do not want to consider where this is going to take Canada and even if it is achievable.

We know that the plan the government has, with a target of a 20% reduction—an absolute reduction—by 2020, is achievable. It's been costed, it's planned, and there is a notice of intent and a gazetting coming. With the Turning the Corner plan we have a realistic plan and a further commitment of 60% to 70% absolute reductions by 2050.

Mr. Chairman, that is one of the toughest targets in Canadian history; it is the toughest target, and it's one of the toughest in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think we can request that. It's a whole big issue, but now I'd like to deal with the amendments to Bill C-377. Certainly at some future date we can request that information. Every member has the right to ask for that.

What we're looking at now is NDP-4. We have had a discussion on it. Are there any other comments? No.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I understand where you're coming from, and the point I've made is that it's valid. It's nice to be wishful, but you have to be realistic.

Of course, my critique of Bill C-377 is that it is empty, hollow, and not realistic. If Mr. Cullen wants to go ahead with a date of December at the end of this year to have regulation in place, that is not realistic. To present this bill with some credibility, I recommend you change the date.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No, it wasn't, and I have a further question.

Thank you for answering. It provides a very general context. Your answer was that it depends on what's being considered as regulations.

What we're considering here is a huge form of consultation with industry at setting targets that are going to be stringent greenhouse gas targets to deal with on an international stage, but affecting Canadian industry. Do you see that as a three-month process? I don't, and I'm thinking this is quite complex, to be setting these international 2050 targets that are going to affect every sector of industry in Canada. To do it properly would take a while.

Your answer was very general: three months to two years. Do you have a feeling of how long it may take for what's being proposed in Bill C-377?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I remind Mr. Cullen that is already happening. There is a certainty with the Turning the Corner plan by regulation, and what he's proposing is to provide a great deal of uncertainty for industry and moving forward.

My question refers to his date. He has a date of December 31, 2008. I remind him we are in March 2008. Our Liberal members know how long it takes to move a regulation. Our Turning the Corner plan is a regulatory framework--and it takes time.

I think Bill C-377 is a very poorly written bill, and we're having to basically rewrite it. We already have a good plan in place, and so I'm not particularly interested in helping Mr. Cullen try to make a very bad bill palatable.

This is a very important point. In his amendment is a proposed date of December 31. It's not realistic. It's a bad bill, but you still have to have some realistic targets and dates set.

I guess my question for Mr. Cullen is whether he honestly thinks you can legally get a regulation in place in that short period of time. The answer, I could tell him, is absolutely not. It's not realistic. What magic is he imagining here?

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my NDP colleague for opting for a more consensual approach, one that is respectful of provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to move a friendly amendment to amendment NDP-2. Immediately following “this or any other act ”, I would add “within the limits of federal constitutional authority”. Basically, I would move the portion of text in subsection (b) which reads “within the limits of federal constitutional authority” to the beginning of the provision. Subsection (b) would then start with “limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released”.

The amendment would then read as follows:

regulations under this or any other Act, within the limits of federal constitutional authority

(a) limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released into the environment;

(b) limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province by applying to each province the commitment made under section 5 [...]

And so on.

Mr. Chairman, there is no guarantee that the territorial approach will be applied by the federal government. However, there are aspects of this amendment found in Bill C-288. They make Bill C-377 somewhat more asymmetrical than we initially considered it to be.

If this friendly amendment is deemed in order, I think members would agree to it. In any event, it seems clear to me that BQ-2 will be defeated.

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

Thank you, Chair.

These amendments come directly out of the testimony we heard from a number of the constitutional experts we brought before us.

I will be brief, yet I will ask for the committee's indulgence in some ways, because this is one of the more substantial pieces we're looking at today.

There are three specific concerns that we were able to find in the testimony. We've looked through the testimony significantly. The first piece of change is a reference to CEPA, particularly section 93 of CEPA.

Under the current writing of the bill, the regulation was deemed to be too broad in its authority. As committee members know--since we've referenced it many times at other hearings--section 93 allows us to focus in on the intention of the bill. It focuses on the government's power and the limits of the government's power to make regulations. It's referenced upon CEPA, which has already passed a challenge at the Supreme Court, and it is also what we borrowed from when we went through a similar exercise on Bill C-288. That's the main piece in limiting government regulatory power.

The second piece--again, we got this from the constitutional lawyers who came in front of us--was the specific legal wording to suggest that using the words “regulations under this or any other Act” anchors this legislation, which is a criticism that was first put to other standing pieces of legislation. This is not a stand-alone piece. It fits in with things that have already gone through--a constitutional challenge like CEPA and other things.

Third and equally important, to allow for greater certainty in subclause 7(2)--if committee members are following--around provincial and federal jurisdictions, the bill required greater clarity around what the provincial and federal governments were allowed to do, particularly, obviously, the federal government. The language we put into it, “any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions”, is again very similar to Bill C-288. This would move the current subclause 7(2) completely out. It will later come up for the committee's reference in clause 9.

We think these amendments are strong, obviously, and speak directly to where some of the concerns were raised. This is the essence and the role of committee, to make sure that bills are as constitutionally sound as possible and reference current law.

The last thing I'll say before I relinquish the floor is that the very first portion of this title under NDP-2, the very first quotation that we come across, “regulations under this or any other Act”, acknowledges a government power that exists already. We're being in a sense overly explicit to say that the regulations the government may come forward with....

The government members of this panel have often said that the plan could be too wide-scoping, could be too this, that, and the other thing. Bill C-377 never purported to outline the exact plan and the exact measures. We've all seen the charts of solutions. Bill C-377 was never intended to do that but rather to set the general direction for the government and allow the government to use the powers it has, be that a cap and trade system, be that auto emission regulations, or be that the various tools that are at the government's disposal. All of these amendments clarify those tools.

The government will find some comfort in this amendment, and we look forward to their support of it as well.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My previous comments were in reference to the poorly written context of Bill C-377. This government strongly supports the good work of the UNFCCC, and the best way to honour that agreement is to take action, and that is what our government has done with the Turning the Corner plan. Bill C-377 does not have the action plan, and as I said, it's very poorly written. To show the world we care about climate change, we need to take action. Bill C-377 won't do that, so I won't be supporting this amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, Bill C-377 proposes to add the qualification that the government has an obligation to ensure that greenhouse gases are reduced to specific targets, and it's subject to these targets identified in the UNFCCC.

The amendment would bind future Canadian governments to accepting targets agreed to under the UNFCCC. These targets may not be consistent with Canada's Turning the Corner plan and the UNFCCC may not be able to come up to an agreement that involves all the major emitters. We heard from the witnesses how important it is for Canada to take leadership, and Canada is taking leadership now with the Turning the Corner plan.

We have, historically, the toughest targets in Canadian history, but we have also taken strong leadership in asking that all the major emitters be involved. And we heard time and time again, particularly from the last set of witnesses, how important it is that we have all the major emitters part of the solution, not just 30%, but we have all the developing world's nations. G8+5 was mentioned, and we need to have 80% to 100% of the countries involved with reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, not just 30%. So this has some problems with the wording.

I'm unclear as to the focus of the amendment that Mr. Bigras has proposed. However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change does not itself include any specific targets, which has been mentioned. I'd like to remind Mr. Bigras that the ultimate objective of that convention is the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. This objective applies to all countries, all the major emitters, and it should be.

Furthermore, we're not in a position to speculate on what will be the exact nature of any new agreement, as has been mentioned, since all parties are about to begin negotiations. They began in Bali.

So I have great difficulty with this proposed amendment, as I do with Bill C-377.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I have just a quick comment here. Clause 3 reads as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

It sounds lofty, and it's actually what we need to do. That's why Canada has the Turning the Corner plan.

Clause 3 is saying that the purpose of this act is to “ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization”. We've heard from witnesses that it's an empty, hollow bill with no policy. It won't accomplish anything. There has been no costing on it, so we don't know what its impacts will be.

We were advised that it needed to have the impact studied. The fact is that the bill came from Mr. Layton, and he said it should be costed. These points have been made at length.

I think if this bill, Bill C-377, had been presented by the government--if you look at this 180 degrees differently--then nobody around would be supporting this. But because it's from the opposition, even though it's a terribly flawed bill that constitutionally will be struck down and will accomplish nothing, the opposition is stubbornly moving forward to support this.

We know that what clause 3 is saying is not the truth. It will not accomplish what Canada needs. The Turning the Corner plan will accomplish what Canada needs to do.

So I can't be supporting this, but I just want to make those quick comments, that what this clause is saying is not the truth. It will not accomplish that, and that's what we've heard from the witnesses.

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

I have no objections to that happening at the second meeting. However, I want things to be different than they were for Bill C-377, when we had to bring in some major amendments and had very little time to do so. Although I said that I agreed with the principle of Bill C-474, the legislation has several flaws that will probably need to be corrected. I wouldn't want us to be caught short at the last minute. It's clear to me that in the case of Bill C-377, the testimony provided by constitutional experts was conclusive in terms of the amendments that were presented.

I would prefer to deal with this as quickly as possible.

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

I think he's attempting to be good-natured about it, so I'm not really bothered much at this time. I'll carry on.

When you look at Bill C-288, some things Bill C-377 should be doing are the kinds of things we see our government doing—the things it has projected ahead in Bill C-288 and the costing for them. The purpose of Bill C-288 is to examine the economic implications. We don't have any proper costing in Bill C-377 as it stands, and that's the difference. We have something of a costing document here in Bill C-288, looking at the economic implications of it. My colleague Mr. Warawa, right at the top of the meeting here, wants this to be properly costed. It's the big rub here; it's the big problem with the bill before us now. That was done in Bill C-288. We don't find that in Bill C-377. But if we could get something like that with its thoroughness, it is the kind of thing necessary as a prelude to moving or making any kind of progress on any bills before this committee.

The objective of the act requiring us to meet our Kyoto obligations over our commitment period from 2008-12 is real and creditable. In December 1997, Canada and 160 other countries that are members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Kyoto to conclude a protocol on the convention to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, or GHGs. The resulting agreement, as regular members of this committee know.... Mr. Pearson doesn't sit here regularly, but I think he follows these issues or attempts to keep on top of them as well. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005. It was signed by Canada on April 29, 1998, and ratified in 2002.

Under the terms of that Kyoto Protocol, 38 industrialized countries, known as annex 1 countries, committed to cutting their emissions of greenhouse gases, between 2008-12, to levels that were at least 5% below 1990 levels.

In terms of individual country targets, Canada is required to reduce emissions to a level 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-12. As a group, the European Union has a target of 8% reduction from its 1990 levels. The United States, which did not ratify the protocol, had a target of 7% reduction from the 1990 levels, while several other countries, one of them being Australia, which also did not ratify, was permitted to let its emissions continue to grow above 1990 levels, but at a reduced rate of growth.

China and India—and we've made much of that in this committee—two of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world, both ratified the Kyoto Protocol. They're not required to reduce their emissions under that current agreement.

So that's the global context.

The science underlying climate change tells us that there are human-caused emissions in GHGs. I think that's what members around this table like Mr. Cullen want to get at. I think the good intent of all the members is to get at this issue and do what we can about human-caused emissions of GHGs, resulting primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy. That's a significant driver or escalator of global warming.

Global energy use trends are therefore at the centre of the issue of climate change and are tied to global economic growth projections. In fact, according to world energy outlook 2006 of the International Energy Agency, world energy demand will increase by 53%—and this is important—from 2004 levels by 2030, with 70% of the increase coming from these developing countries. Similar energy and emissions growth projections are made in the IEO 2006 by the energy information administration.

There are charts of that kind of stuff that we can provide for the committee if they so wish.

According to the EIA, fossil fuels remain the dominant source of world energy, accounting for about 83%.

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

That's fair. I don't want to offend members here. Far be it from me to do that on something so crucial as this issue.

I think it's true that Canadians want some practical solutions. To have something kind of vague, and again, as we said, we've repeated that, and that's for emphasis here, of course the ambiguity of Bill C-377....

I think we want the balanced kinds of solutions to environmental protection and economic growth. It means that those economic decisions are environmentally responsible. They absolutely have to be.

Back on February 14, 2007, the House of Commons passed Bill C-288, an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Section 3 of that bill stated that the purpose of that act is to ensure that Canada takes effective and timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and help address the problem of global climate change.

If Bill C-288 is approved by the Senate, subsection 7(1) requires that within 180 days of the act coming into force, the Governor in Council will ensure that Canada fully meets those obligations under article 3, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol, by making, amending, or repealing—