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.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your wise ruling today and ask you to accept our accolades.

The reason this is important for us as parliamentarians is that what took place at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is something that all parliamentarians, regardless of political stripe or interest, should resist. The government's unwillingness to accept a private member's piece of legislation meant that it used a tactic that has never been known in the recorded history of this place: that of filibustering, in a sense, a private member's bill.

As was noted in a Speaker's ruling some weeks prior to this, the committees in this place must learn to function and govern themselves in an appropriate way. They must learn to conduct the will of Parliament and the will of Canadians who have sent us to this place to advocate on their behalf for good things to happen.

Bill C-377, with the four amendments that I will be addressing today, does exactly that. For the first time in Canadian law, the targets relating to climate change, the greenhouse gas emissions for this country, will be legislated into law, thereby prohibiting any government, this one or any future government, from resisting the will of Canadians, from resisting the inclination that we must do the right thing when it comes to climate change.

As for these amendments, the irony, I suppose, which my colleagues are well aware of although I am not sure that all government members are, is that when we ran into this impasse in committee, this filibuster presented by the Conservatives, it was around clause 10, which is a clause for accountability and transparency when dealing with greenhouse gases. That is all the clause said. This part of the bill said that the government must tell Canadians what it has done, what the record has been on climate change, where the successes and failures have been, and then also tell Canadians what the plans are and have that accountable to Canadians. That is where we hit the roadblock.

This is obviously ironic coming from the Conservatives, who spent a great deal of time and effort in the last Parliament and then in the lead-up to this one in their campaign, talking about transparency and accountability. When it came to facing a bill on the environment, on climate change, which is top of mind for Canadians, in the very section that says the government must be transparent and accountable the government chose to delay and deny the reality of what we are faced with.

The fact is that Canada as a nation, as an economy, is far off track with our own commitments, our international commitments, but also far off track with what the rest of the developed world is doing, which is to find a way to make our economy more efficient, to produce more green collar jobs, and to allow Canadians to feel assured about our environment's future and not have to continue to face the threat of irreversible climate change, which we are already seeing.

It is a moral question that the government has been unable to face. It is a question of ethics that the government is unwilling to consider. In its two and a half long years in the House, following up on the 13 long years in government of the previous regime--too many--the government has been unable to effectively address the issue of climate change.

New Democrats, under the leadership of the member for Toronto—Danforth, have finally presented a reasonable, considered piece of legislation that will allow the country to move forward on this critical issue.

The actual amendments dealing with this bill are I think quite instructive. This bill, like all bills by the time they reach their final stages and final processes, originated some two years ago. The final four amendments to this bill deal with lessons learned over two years. They are lessons learned at the special legislative committee on the clean air and climate change act. That act was a flawed government bill that the NDP rewrote and for which it presented the best thinking on issues related to the environment at the time.

This was learned from events with respect to Bill C-288, when the government found a way to again try to put the kibosh on what was happening. We learned again from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, please correct me if I am wrong procedurally, but I have just been handed a note about splitting my time with the member for Outremont.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There are four motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

The Chair does not ordinarily provide reasons for its selection of report stage motions in amendment. However, in light of the point of order raised on Thursday, May 8, 2008 by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the subsequent intervention of the hon. deputy government House leader, I would like to convey to the House the reasoning involved in considering these motions.

In his submission, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh described the particular circumstances surrounding the committee consideration of Bill C-377.

During its consideration of the bill, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development presented three separate reports. In the first of these reports, presented on April 14, 2008, the committee described procedural difficulties it had encountered in the course of its study of Bill C-377 and recommended some action that the House might wish to take.

On April 29, 2008, in its second report relating to this bill, the committee reported Bill C-377 with eight amendments. On the same day, the committee presented a third report. This report explained that having begun its clause by clause study on March 3, 2008, prolonged debate on clause 10 of the bill resulted in an impasse; and that as no further progress seemed possible, the committee turned to the consideration of a motion, the effect of which was to deem adopted the remaining parts of the bill and to agree that the bill be reported to the House without further debate or amendment. This motion was adopted on division by the committee.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh also referred to previous Speaker's rulings where motions in amendment at report stage were selected on the basis that members involved did not have the opportunity to present motions during the committee consideration stage. Specifically, he cited a ruling given on January 28, 2003, regarding Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction, and a ruling given on November 6, 2001, regarding Bill C-10, An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

In his intervention on Friday, May 9, 2008, the hon. deputy government House leader also reviewed the sequence of events surrounding the committee consideration of the bill and referred to the two rulings just cited. He went on to argue that, in his view, the committee's decision to report the bill back to the House prior to the May 7, 2008 deadline represents a conscious decision of the majority of the committee not to make full usage of the time remaining and thus to forego further opportunities to propose amendments at the committee stage. On this basis, he concluded that the motions at report stage should not be selected.

Four report stage motions have been submitted. These motions are identical to committee amendments which were not considered due to the impasse, as described in the committee's report and the adoption by the committee of the motion to report the bill. The motions relate to clauses of the bill which were deemed carried at the committee stage, quite clearly as a way out of the impasse.

The Chair is now faced with the matter of selection. The note accompanying S. O. 76(5) reads, in part: “The Speaker ... will normally only select motions which were not or could not be presented [in committee].”

Having carefully reviewed the sequence of events and the submissions made by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the hon. deputy government House leader, the Chair is of the opinion that we are facing very exceptional circumstances. The committee recognized that the impasse was significant and wanted to bring that situation to the attention of the House. It did so in a report which states in part:

Given the impasse, the Committee opted not to consider the remaining clauses and parts of the Bill....

Therefore, I am satisfied that these motions could not be presented during the committee consideration of the bill, and accordingly I have selected them for debate at report stage. Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I shall now propose motions numbered 1 to 4 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Bill C-377—Climate Change Accountability Act

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised on May 8 by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the selection of report stage amendments to Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

It will be my contention that the member is, in effect, Mr. Speaker, asking you to allow his party, and especially the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to act in variation from the principle you laid out for us on March 21, 2001, when you said:

—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...

Let me give you some background, Mr. Speaker.

Bill C-377 was referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 25, 2007, in the previous session and was subsequently reinstated in that same committee pursuant to Standing Order 86(1).

The committee began its study on December 11, 2007, and was granted an extension on March 12, 2008, which gave the committee until May 7 to report the bill to the House.

At its April 17 meeting the committee adopted a motion, on division, which had been put forward by the New Democratic member for Windsor—Tecumseh, to put an end to the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill and to report it back to the House with amendments.The committee adopted the motion well in advance of the May 7 deadline imposed by the Standing Orders.

The bill was subsequently reported to the House on April 29. The committee had more time to complete its work than it used, but it chose not to do so. It chose to do so, on division.

Procedural considerations that should be taken into account are the following. The note to Standing Order 76.1(5) states that the purpose of report stage is:

—to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage of a bill.

The committee decided to end its clause by clause examination of the bill prematurely. One of the persons involved in that decision was the member who is now proposing further amendments. The new Democratic Party is putting forward amendments at report stage therefore that ought to have been considered in committee. Thus, the course of action being proposed to you, Mr. Speaker, by the New Democratic Party is inconsistent with the purpose of report stage.

In this vein I would note that the amendments on the notice paper stand in the name of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where the bill was considered. He therefore had ample opportunity to introduce the amendments at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the fact that I sound like I am doing a bad imitation of Brian Mulroney, but I have a cold.

Furthermore, the Standing Orders state, at page 270:

Motions which were considered in committee and subsequently withdrawn are also generally not selected.

I would note that the amendments that appear on the notice paper are the same amendments the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had given notice of during the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill. These amendments therefore were effectively withdrawn when the committee decided to report the bill back to the House.

In his point of order, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh took note of the lengthy debate on the bill during the committee's clause by clause consideration of the bill and stated that this was the committee's rationale for ending its work prematurely.

I would concede that this point might have been relevant if the debate in committee had prevented the committee from reporting the bill before the May 7 deadline, at which time, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the bill would have been deemed reported without amendments, thereby depriving the member of the ability to present those amendments in committee. However, this was not the case as the committee decided, with the support of the relevant member, to end its study of the bill three weeks before it was obliged to report the bill to the House.

We turn now to some precedents.

To support his argument, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raised two previous rulings where the Speaker selected report stage amendments that could have been moved in committee. However, the circumstances in each case were clearly different from the case before us today.

In the first case, the January 28, 2003 ruling, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Mississauga South on the grounds that the member was not a member of the standing committee and therefore could not propose amendments in committee. This is clearly not the case with the report stage amendments to Bill C-377, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The second example. In a ruling on November 6, 2001, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the grounds that the member sat on two committees that were seized with bills at the same time and therefore it was not possible for the member to be present at the relevant committee at the time when such amendments would have, in the normal course of events, been introduced.

This precedent does not apply to the present case since the committee's minutes of proceeding show that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was clearly an active participant in the committee's clause by clause study of Bill C-377.

In short, unlike the precedents cited by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would have been able to move his amendments if the committee had chosen to continue clause by clause consideration. Instead, the committee decided to stop its work and report the bill back to the House, thereby precluding the introduction of the said amendments.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a blatant abuse of the rules of the House. This is clearly an example of the majority on a committee effectively suspending or bypassing the Standing Orders in order to abrogate the protection that these Standing Orders provide to the rights of the minority.

By using such tactics, the opposition majority on any committee could theoretically rush through any bill by deciding to report the bill without any study and then proposing report stage amendments to amend the bill. This would be a dangerous precedent to set for private member's bills as such items are already subject to a significant time allocation and are already fast tracked relative to government bills.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to draw your attention to your statement of March 21, 2001, on the guidelines for the selection of report stage amendments:

—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...

I have emphasized that quote because it is so important.

Clearly the New Democratic Party has chosen to ignore the Speaker's wise advice by not availing itself fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage. NDP members cannot have it both ways. They cannot decide that clause by clause consideration should be terminated prematurely and then expect people to propose its committee amendments at report stage. The NDP is essentially asking that the committee stage of Bill C-377 be continued at report stage, and this is exactly the opposite of what is stated in the Standing Orders and what has been confirmed by the Speaker.

I therefore submit to the House that the amendments to Bill C-377 should not be selected for debate at report stage.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order today relates to Bill C-377, which is on the notice paper and which was reported back to the House within the last week, I believe on April 29. It will come forward on Monday for your rulings in selecting what amendments would be in order.

The provision for making that determination is in accordance with the Standing Orders, and specifically with Standing Order 76.1(5). I will only read the first sentence because the rest of it is not particularly germane. It states:

The Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it.

Flowing out of that particular Standing Order, the procedure and House affairs committee some period back made a proposal to be brought forward in the form of a resolution. There was a note attached to that, Mr. Speaker, which you made some reference. However, the note, and I will quote the initial sentence of it, which is by way of explanation of how Standing Order 76.1(5) is to be interpreted, states:

The Speaker will not normally select for consideration by the House any motion previously ruled out of order in committee and will normally only select motions which were which were not or could not be presented in committee.

You made further rulings with regard to that, Mr. Speaker, in a ruling that affected, first, myself and then the member for Mississauga South. In response to the report from procedure and House affairs, you made these notes. I want to quote in terms of setting the criteria. First, in terms of what the considerations would be, you said, “past selection practices not affected by this latest directive will continue to apply”. We have a history of how we deal with amendments at report stage. You went on to say:

For example, motions and amendments that were presented in committee will not be selected, nor will motions ruled out of order in committee. Motions defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges them to be of exceptional significance.

Then you went on and referred members to pages of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

You further went on, Mr. Speaker, and said:

Second, regarding the new guidelines, I will apply the tests of repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage proceedings insofar as it is possible to do so in the particular circumstances...

I want to quickly add that the amendments being proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley are not frivolous or vexatious and do not meet that test whatsoever.

In the two decisions you have rendered in this regard, Mr. Speaker, one, as I pointed out, affected myself when I was first here back in November 2001. It was a situation where I was unable, because of conflicts of being at two committees at the same time, to get my amendments put forward. You ruled at that time, acknowledging the difficulty on my part, that I did have difficulty in moving these amendments and the Chair, in those circumstances, would give me the benefit of the doubt and allow the amendments to move forward, and they in fact did.

Then there was a second ruling by yourself, Mr. Speaker, in January 2003, involving a request from the member for Mississauga South for amendments to be selected by you. At that time, you made two points, the second of which I think is more relevant to the circumstances we have today. The first one recognized that our parliamentary system was party driven and that the positions of parties were brought forward to committees through its officially designated member. The Chair also recognized that some members may want to act on their own. You then went on to say, Mr. Speaker:

Consequently, the Chair is of the opinion that certain motions by the hon. member for Mississauga could not be presented during the clause by clause study in committee and should therefore be studied at the report stage.

In combination, those two rationales, Mr. Speaker, were to the point that if motions could not have been presented at the time when we normally would in committee, then you would normally allow them to be selected at report stage.

I argue today that this is exactly what we are confronted with here. In that regard, the history of what has happened, and I will go to the two reports that have been issued from the environment committee, because that is where Bill C-377 was considered, is there was an initial report, the third report about two or three months ago, which indicated that there were significant difficulties in process at that committee, to the extent that it felt compelled to bring the report forward. I would refer you to the report, Mr. Speaker, when you make considerations as to my point of order.

The second report with regard to Bill C-377 and the environment committee was the sixth report from that committee, and there were several points. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the third paragraph of the report, indicating that in fact work had been done on Bill C-377 in committee, that certain clauses had been adopted, others were postponed because of, to use the term in the report, “a prolonged debate of over twenty hours on clause 10 which led the Committee to an impasse”. In effect, what was going on, in the terms that we more often use in the House, was a filibuster by the government. Therefore, the report was passed back here from the committee.

I also would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the effect of what was going on there and the degree of the impasse, to the fifth paragraph of the report, which states, “Given the impasse, the Committee opted not to consider the remaining clauses and parts of the Bill and adopted the following motion”. Out of consideration of time, I will not read that, but in effect the motion reflected that certain sections were reviewed, some were amended, but there were outstanding amendments that were never considered, and the final paragraph sets out which ones those were.

The motion was adopted by the committee, that the bill be sent back at that stage. Therefore, some have been amended, others have not even been considered, and others had been considered, but with no opportunity for amendments to be made.

The amendments proposed by our member are very clear. They are not frivolous.

I also want to make one final note. There were minority reports to the sixth report, and in that, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley made it very clear to the committee so there was no misunderstanding, and I was there at the committee and also made a similar statement, that we would be moving amendments at the report stage, subject to the determination by the Chair as to whether they should be selected or not. It is not like the committee did not understand that these amendments would come forward and that they would be pursued at report stage.

In summary, I believe it is one of those opportunities. We did not have the ability to move these amendments at committee. It is appropriate that you consider them, Mr. Speaker, and select them at this time.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-377, an Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change.

Second, I have the pleasure to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The report provides reasons for the committee not having completed its study of Bill C-377, an Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change.

Mr. Speaker, the committee adopted clauses 3 to 9 with amendments, postponed clause 1, the preamble and the short title pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), and stood clause 2. The committee was unable to vote on clauses 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 due to a prolonged debate of over 20 hours on clause 10, which led the committee to an impasse.

As members will recall, the committee presented a report on April 14, 2008, arising from the debate on the bill, regarding inherent difficulties in the rules and procedures of the House. As a result of the impasse, the committee adopted a motion to the effect that the title, the preamble, clauses 1, 2, 10, as amended, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Bill C-377, an Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change be deemed adopted, that the bill as amended be deemed adopted, and that the chair report the bill as amended to the House.

I wish to note that as an indicator of the impasse, the report contains in annex four supplementary opinions.

I wish to thank all members of the committee for their willingness to find a compromise, allowing the committee to proceed in its important work.

[Warren Newman]

Any mandate must take into account the fact that we live in a federation made up of provinces and that municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. Even federal documents must sometimes refer to the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I do not think we can go beyond the scope of this act, because we do not have the authority to do that. The constitutionality of such a move could perhaps also be challenged, although I do not want to get into that. This issue is already being debated in the case of bills C-377 and C-288.

How far can the federal government go in terms of intervening in areas under provincial jurisdiction? I do not think this bill attempts to do that. Rather, it applies more to the workings of federal institutions. It is up to Parliament to enact legislation for the peace, order and good government of Canada and its federal institutions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have not seen the report. Basically, the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP were in support of Bill C-377. My colleagues and I on this side of the table were quite concerned about Bill C-377 and that it doesn't do anything substantial for the environment. So we submitted our supplementary report.

It would be nice to know what the other parties are presenting. Would it be possible, before you table that, for us to have a chance to see it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Great. We'll get the clerks to pass these around.

So on Bill C-377, my plan is to table that tomorrow. You know the report. I think everyone has received a copy of the letter from us that's going with it; it basically summarizes what happened and why we're sending it back in the form we are.

Does anybody have any comments or questions about that?

Mr. Warawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Order, please.

I would like to deal with a couple of items before we get started and welcome our guests and so on.

First of all, regarding Bill C-377, we have received the Liberal, Bloc, and Conservative papers, which will be attached when I table this tomorrow. I understand that the NDP's paper will be completed shortly.

Is it ready now? Okay.

Anyway, if the members wish, we do have copies here. We need your permission to hand them around to everyone. No one has seen the others' copies of this. So what is your wish?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay, everybody understands that.

Okay, that is Bill C-377, and Mr. Cullen wasn't here to enjoy this moment with us.

You've BlackBerryed him? Good.

Mr. Godfrey, at that first meeting on April 28 we would be looking at the report. We would be finalizing that so the clerks can get that all put together for me to table later that week. We could then move on to Bill C-474 and try to arrange witnesses for, say, the last hour of that day, and then again on the Wednesday.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, on the suggestion from Mr. Godfrey that it be limited to two pages, we've become quite used to the opposition members trying to keep us from sharing our concerns about Bill C-377, but in the spirit of moving out of the woods, as Mr. Bigras suggested, we can live with two pages.

As my colleague Mr. Harvey shared, we do have great concerns. Mr. Watson shared at length the impacts of Bill C-377 on the auto industry, the huge increases in energy costs that would result if Bill C-377 were to go forward. It may be difficult to put it within two pages, but we will try.

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

Mr. Chairman, we several times indicated that we had various concerns with regard to Bill C-377. We underscored the fact that it was missing a few important elements. Today, not only is it missing certain elements, but it is even missing portions of the bill tabled by Mr. Layton a few months ago, a few weeks ago. It is therefore really not possible to limit ourselves to two pages. Personally, I hope to be able to present a dissenting report and I do not believe I will be able to summarize in fewer than 20 pages my views on the weakness of the bill as tabled.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Because of the great concern I had regarding Bill C-377, which I've shared at length, we'll be submitting a supplementary minority report as per routine proceedings. I think it's also important that we have that so we can adequately share, through you to the House, the concerns we have with Bill C-377.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

What we'll do is put together this report.

Have we finished Bill C-377?

Yes, Mr. Warawa.